Leonid Brezhnev on holiday. Late 1970s. Credit: Laski Diffusion/Getty Images
Rule by the elderly gets a bad rap these days. Our word for it — gerontocracy — shares the same root as geriatric and is typically deployed in the service of mocking rulers so old and infirm that they shouldn’t be given the keys to a car, let alone a nuclear arsenal. More than anything, it conjures up images of stagnation-era USSR, of Leonid Brezhnev and all those other doddery old communists standing atop Lenin’s mausoleum, blinking rheumily at the tanks trundling past on Victory Day, as they shivered in the shadow of the Grim Reaper, wondering which of them would be next to go.
Brezhnev gave up the ghost in 1982, although he had been rehearsing for death for at least half a decade prior; not even the Soviet propaganda machine could cover up his obvious physical and mental decrepitude as he slurred his way through speeches on state TV. His successor, Yuri Andropov, had once been a vigorous crusher of dissent both at home and abroad, but by the time he got the top job he was already dying from kidney disease and kicked the collective farm-bucket a mere 15 months later.
Next came Konstantin Chernenko, a man so unwell he had to dress up his hospital room to make it look like an office. He barely lasted a year before leaving for the great Communist Party Congress in the sky. By this point the increasingly rickety Politburo finally accepted it was time to hand power to someone who was not teetering on the brink of death. And so it was that Mikhail Gorbachev, who at a sprightly 54 years old was their youngest member, took over.
Yet as much as people still like to crack wise about Soviet gerontocrats, it is a little-recognised fact that most of those seemingly ancient communists were actually younger than America’s political leadership is now. Brezhnev was in his late 50s when he became leader and 75 when he died; Andropov was 69 when he died, and Chernenko was 73 when he shuffled off this mortal coil. At 74, Trump has already outlived them all bar Brezhnev, while Biden, who will turn 78 in November, is almost a decade older than Andropov was when he breathed his last.
And that’s just the presidential candidates. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house and third in line to the presidency, is 80 years old; she graduated from college the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is 78; he got his first job in politics while LBJ was still in office. Meanwhile, Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the senate judiciary committee, is 87; she was already two years into her university studies when Stalin died, and is a mere two years younger than Gorbachev is now.
And it’s not as if this is a new phenomenon; in the past, there were politicians who were still in office at even greater ages. When I moved to the states in 2006 there was a hearty old fellow in the senate by the name of Robert Byrd; he was so old he could remember when it was cool for Democrats to run around in white hoods. This jolly ex-Klansman died in office in 2010 at the age of 92. Strom Thurmond, another long-serving Democrat with a youthful enthusiasm for racism, made it to the age of 100 before expiring in office in 2003, at which point his corpse was eulogised by none other than Joe Biden (back then a mere stripling of 61).
And this is to say nothing of the Supreme Court, where the justices are appointed for life and enjoy the kind of job security granted only to the likes of Xi Jinping — although even he had to organise a vote to have his term limits removed.
No doubt the high-functioning state of America’s elderly politicians is a testament to the invigorating effects of sustained exposure to money and power and E-Z access to super-expensive, high quality healthcare (there’s your fountain of youth right here). But then again, given that America is often pilloried for its obsession with youth and beauty, is it not reassuring — a sign of maturity, even — that the people elect only the most experienced politicians to govern? Many cultures revere the wisdom that comes with age; in The Republic, Plato states that “it is obvious” that “the elder must govern, and the younger be governed.” The very word “senate” has the same root as “senex” and refers to a council of elders. Thus, the US version (average age 62.9) embodies the vision of the Roman original that was established some 2,500 or so years ago.
Meanwhile, I am suspicious of the weasel wording of “cognitive decline” that was sometimes tossed around by commentators during the primaries, especially when they wished that the likes of Biden or Bernie Sanders (also 78) would make way for their preferred candidate, such as the 71-years-young Elizabeth Warren. These same people would no doubt have been outraged had the same argument been applied to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg (still getting her law on right up until she died at the age of 87).
And consider Nelson Mandela: he was 75 when he entered office and 81 when he retired. Did the fact that Jacob Zuma was a bit younger make him “cognitively more awesome” (I believe that’s the scientific term)? Or, to take an example from outside politics: Clint Eastwood is 90 and Michael Bay is 55. But even the most tedious late period Clint Eastwood movie is cognitively superior to Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Age may not be just a number, but it’s certainly not a disqualifier either.
Yes, I would happily be governed by a council of wise elders if I could be certain that they really were the wisest folk going — which brings us back to Plato. He was not in favour of rule by any old greybeard; he did not assume that merely by growing old, you become wise. In The Republic he adds that “those who govern must be the best of them.” And therein lies the rub. All too often, age does not bring wisdom, and perhaps those who actively seek power over others are among those least likely to develop wisdom.
In the USSR, the leadership instead grew sclerotic and decrepit and fearful of change, condemning the state (and its people) to a long stagnation that ultimately ended with the collapse of the whole shebang. As for America’s political elites, with Congress’ approval rating sitting at a lowly 17% the consensus appears to be that this council of elders is not only not wise, they’re not even all that competent.
The Trump-Biden debate was reminiscent of the old “that’s you, that is” Newman and Baddiel skit in which two cranky historians would lob a series of increasingly childish insults at each other, only not as funny. The sight of Nancy Pelosi tearing up the State of the Union address behind Trump’s back was petulant and juvenile, cool only in the eyes of those deranged by Orange Man Bad syndrome or seeking to profit from the US media’s fear-and-hatred-for-clicks business model.
I also suspect that having the same people stick around for decades, pickled in their contempt for each other, may have something to do with the endless deadlock we see in American politics. Let us not underestimate the sheer, soul-crushing awfulness of turning up for work, day after day, year after year, only to squabble with the same people over and over and over again. There are no surprise maneuvers, no hitherto unknown tricks to be learned. Just the same opponent, making the same irritating moves endlessly until — quite literally — death.
In every other field of endeavour, whether it be business or the arts, it is held as a truism that it’s good to bring in new eyes, new perspectives, lest stagnation kicks in. Even if it doesn’t work out, a new generation could at least start again in the naïve hope that they might be able to work together and strike a few compromises and become gradually disillusioned over time. America’s elite politicians were disillusioned with each other decades ago; some have been hating each other since Nixon was in power.
Alas, power, and the mysterious habit American politicians have of getting really rich (or richer still) once in office makes it hard for them to let go. And in the absence of term limits for everyone but the president, they don’t even have to do a Putin and organise a weird referendum to justify their continued presence in our lives. They can just stick around for as long as their constituents keep reelecting them. And they do: again and again and again.
Daniel Kalder is an author based in Texas. Previously, he spent ten years living in the former Soviet bloc. His latest book, Dictator Literature, is published by Oneworld. He also writes on Substack: Thus Spake Daniel Kalder.
Daniel_Kalder 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHaving young MPs and PMs (Blair, Cameron) has really worked well for the UK in the last 20 years….
You can’t expect someone to put up with the demands of being a SPAD for thirty years (long hours, low pay, bullying, sexual harassment) before giving them a crack at a safe seat. LOL
I have been making the point for some time that we laughed at the USSR 40 years ago, yet the US has arrived in a similar place. Still, at least Brezhnev and co didn’t have the problem of campaigning…
Apparently Biden will not be appearing at any events in person between now and 3 November! This is partly to avoid questions on Hunter and the corruption etc, and partly because almost nobody turns up at his events. (There are usually more Trump supporters than Biden supporters).
Whatever you think about Trump, he is able to get out there to two or three rallies each day. I watched some of his rally in NH yesterday. As always, it was packed out, with thousands of people outside wanting to get in. I then watched him visit a farmer’s market in Maine. With the possible exception of Bill Clinton, I have never seen any politician receive such adulation.
The issue with the Soviet Politburo was never that it was full of old men, it was that they ran a poorly functioning system that was contemptuous of facts and competence. Just as so many of the woke jackasses would have us introduce today – scrap facts and competence, and introduce a system based on “justice” (their conception, of course), quotas and feelings.
The wokerati are as dangerous as the Soviets.
There is a covid epidemic running riot in the US in case you missed it. It is irresponsible to be holding big mass events now.
Something like 99,8% of people below the age of 55 will recover from Covid. For the young it is less deadly than normal flu. Even Trump, at 74, recovered in a heartbeat albeit, of course, with the best healthcare in the world.
OF COURSE the older are not necessarily wiser. But wise older people almost always have the benefit of greater knowledge of the value of things that younger people might not appreciate – such as the incredible importance of institutions, the vital significance of history and the dangers of revolutionary thinking.
And simply, the experience of years
Corrupt Trudeau, just across the border doesnt exactly shine a torch for the younger generation.
Yes, but he is good at quotas and virtue signaling (except when he wears blackface…)
Why were the old Soviets so desperate to hang onto power rather than enjoy the comforts of retirement? Two main reasons: out of office they would suffer many of the deprivations suffered by ordinary Soviets and they feared that once in power the younger generation would put them on trial for their crimes. The first reason does not apply to the American gentocrats. The second reason probably does. Biden’s corruption has recently been exposed yet again. Obama does not want a Trump second term as investigators would turn to who exactly authorised the FBI to spy on Trump’s 2016 campaign. Then there is the Clinton Foundation and the evidence slowly emerging of who allowed Epstein to get young girls to keep their beds warm.
And today we are learning that Hunter was keeping his bed (or couch) warm with a minor. And that this was – allegedly – covered up by his mother and father. (Apparently they have the sms messages).
The MSM blackout and Social Media censoring has backfired with a Streisand effect drawing even more attention to Biden being stuck between a rock and a hard drive – Apparently a popular google search has become ‘can I change my vote’ from the mail in Democrats – The now likely Tump victory will see many swamp dwellers get a nice dry cell and many of them in previously revered institutions – We have only seen the tip of the iceberg and there is also the Epstein berg – So many in high places are quaking at the prospect of Trump – If it is sleepy Joe they are safe and of course so is the CCP and Soros and Clause Schwab’s Great Reset…not forgetting Bill Gates – They all need Biden but they wont get him.
There’s a lot there that’s true, certainly, and having only the same people hanging around for decades hardening their views and animosity cannot be a good thing.
Might some of this also be related to a change in our expectations of our leaders. More recent trends in communication and feedback has led to leaders taking on ever more personal and immediate responsibility. No one wants an aging but highly experienced captain of the football team being the only one allowed to take shots… that’s what those at the top of their game are there for whilst the cool heads get the best from them until they’re ready to lead themselves. Likewise, a leader that has a strong history and provides a framework of stability and continuity but empowers the more innovative people to help shape policy is no bad thing, as long as they remain mentally and physically strong enough to project the country’s image of itself at home and abroad.
It might also be fair to take into account changing life expectancies and improving later life health when comparing with the 1970’s USSR (68 in 1970 USSR compared to 88 in the US today).
The only thing worse than a set of very old politicians might well turn out to be a set of very young ones of course!
Alas, power, and the mysterious habit American politicians have of getting really rich (or richer still) once in office makes it hard for them to let go.
The wealth that the likes of Pelosi, Di-Fi, McConnell, and others have amassed while feeding at the public trough is practically criminal, but they remain in office. Why is that? Because we have allowed for the creation of a system in which people may start by wanting to do good, but they invariably notice how easy it is to do well.
Joe Biden is a sterling example of that, in a story that the US media is bent on covering with a pillow until it stops breathing. The only real commodity that members of Congress have is influence. Over votes, over policy, over other members of Congress. So quite naturally, they are going to sell (or at least rent) that service to those willing to pay.
The orange man might be as old as or older than most of those with skin in the current game but in chutzpah and humour and mischievousness he is out on his own. To say nothing of his resilience. Has any president had to defend himself for four years by such a ghastly collection of spiteful enemies? The miracle is that he has achieved so much more than just bravely enduring it. So you would have to say that he looks in no danger of requiring a quiet room in a rest home any time soon. The stakes are too high at present to dwell on it but in retrospect, whatever the result of the vote, his performances at an already long series of rallies will be appreciated as very remarkable.
In Canada and around the world, as the population gets older, the leaders get younger. There is something very suspicious about that. That some countries are holding fast to older politicians is something that needs serious consideration.
If Greta were to immigrate, I think Canadians would elect her PM. All I hear these days is ‘listen to the children’.
“In the USSR, the leadership instead grew sclerotic and decrepit and fearful of change” – I think it was all those things from the moment Stalin took power.
On the contrary, Stalin was a big fan of regularly going through the Party and state apparatus and clearing out the “dead wood”. Even if the wood wasn’t dead at the beginning of the process, it generally was at the end.
Ha! Good point. I wonder if like Marie Kondo it gave him a spark of joy.
It is simplistic to look only on age when searching for explanations on why things are the way they currently are. I believe there should be a balance in age, but also it should be quite apparent that what really matters in the end is substance, good policy, good ideas. That’s what the USSR lacked, but the ideological base of the Soviet state was deeply putrid, so whatever their politicians did, while keeping the same oppresive system, did no difference, until a true reformer -and a fortunate storm of events- came.
For the record, I must correct two things that the author has said that are somewhat or totally wrong, both about Strom Thurmond:
1) Thurmond began as a Democrat like almost everyone who held power in the South during Jim Crow, but became a Republican in the early-to-mid ’60s, remainining in that party to his death.
2) Thurmond didn’t die in office. He retired after the 2002 midterms and died half a year later.
Just two small corrections. All considered, this is a good article, with certain caveats, but I agree that the current gerontocracy tends not to be very wise and nuanced. They’re very, very far from one of the greatest “gerontocrts” ever – Adenauer. But the politicians that will come after them seem, as for now, vastly less wise and nuanced than this gerontocracy.
I would trade Justin Trudeau for almost any grey beard, but, take a pass on Tweedledum and Tweedledee currently shuffling their way to an election in the US.
Young or old, who needs them? It is time the state was cut down to size with limited power. The state should only provide what we cannot provide. When it does not matter who we vote for we will have the right size of government.
The 17% approval rate of congress is meaningless. In 2018 the re-election rate was 91%, in 2016 it was 97%. These are typical numbers since 1950.
A writer friend once summed it up wisely: “The very fact of someone campaigning for office should disqualify them.” Like the Zen parable of the farmer who is called to duty during a war but insists on retiring back to his farm afterward rather than be promoted to emperor, we need a whole new ethos in politics. Perhaps a return to a model based on the original Athenian conception of democracy: a senate composed of people called up periodically for a temporary period of civic duty, but from all walks of life, not just the professional. Outside expertise can always be hired as needed. By turning politics into a profession, and a highly paid one at that, we merely attract all the bottom feeders and opportunists.
I often heard the expression “experience doesn’t make us clever but it makes us wise” used be older managers and leaders. I often wondered I have to say!
I prefer the quote from John Wooden “I’d rather have a lot of talent and a little experience than a lot of experience and a little talent.”
I would prefer those who govern to have both talent and experience.
Age is irrelevant. Competence is what matters. An aged population can be an issue, but in presidential terms only individual attributes should matter. As many have pointed out, the principal worry about this election race is that out of 300m people in the richest country in the world, with the highest ranked educational establishments and many stellar academics, business leaders and creatives, Trump and Biden are the best they can come up with.
So, we have abortion at one end and euthanasia at the other. Wtf? Some cultures actually RESPECT the wisdom of their OLDERS! So sick.
Not quite sure of the relevance of your comment. It reads like it’s drawing an inference from mine, but I can’t see any connection.