An older leader often has fewer long term stakes in the decisions they make, if they were to destabilize the economy or lead the country into conflict, they may not experience the full consequences of their actions, as their personal future is less affected compared to younger generations. Leadership at that level requires making decisions that will shape the long term future of a nation, and it’s crucial that those in power have a vested interest in that future. Additionally, presidents and politicians are public servants, and like any profession, there should be an age limit or retirement age to ensure the vitality, adaptability, and long term accountability necessary for effective leadership. At what age do you think they need to retire?

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Millenial here, I would do it this way:

    • Lower age limit for any leadership position would be 18.
    • Certain positions would require adequate qualifications, no Fox News hosts for positions about nuclear safety.
    • Regular tests for drug use. If too drunk to drive, then also too drunk to govern.
    • Above 70+, mandatory mental fitness checks, also can no longer run for elections unless incumbent (proven popularity).
    • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      There is zero chance anyone close to 18 would ever be elected to a federal position. Anyone over 25 knows how stupid they were at 18 and would apply that understanding to the 18 year old.

      I love the idea of a Sergeant at Arms giving a field sobriety test to a senator. I would like to see them fined an amount equal to a month’s wages if they are drunk. The rest of what you said is also good.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Lower age limit for any leadership position would be 18.

      With at least 10 years served in public office