Status Updates From Gerontocracy in America: Ho...

Moyn argues for or gives credence to abolishing the Senate, the Electoral College, lowering the voting age, implementing term and age limits and possibly giving children votes (either directly or by proxy).

These are radical changes, essentially altering the entire makeup of US politics, not to mention extremely unlikely barring some sort of communist revolution.

"It is simply by showing up (to local govt meetings) that elderly advocacy and self-advocacy do most of the damage." Moyn goes on to illustrate that this advocacy affects housing/zoning policy (ie NIMBYs are older, more established homeowners focused on their preservation). This is more of a generational issue, no?

"The AARP's default goal for decades has bene not so much big gerontocratic change as a gerontocratic status quo."

"The irony and the shame are that the AARP hasn't been a cause group for the remaining elderly poor, due to its conservative and self-preservative instincts."

Again, not so much gerontocracy, but a oligarchic gerontocracy. Although I guess that would not be as good a title.

"politically (AARP) was in the right place at the right time as the great aging created legitimate new needs."

The AARP "demonstrates that older priorities have been normalized at all levels of government [...] The organization is also emblematic of the potent self-advocacy of elders in local government, which goes unnoticed but is having profound effects on neighborhoods everywhere." Yes, but the AARP is an org that has purely benefitted from the sheer amount of Baby Boomers. Not the entirety of elderly. This is different

"The elderly have captured the political system". Read, the Boomers have captured the political system.

Moyn's usage of the stat that 20 percent of Dem campaign staffers "come from seven universities" is an interesting figure. He uses it to prove the domination of gerontocratic politics, but doesn't this mean that this is a new crop of (probably wealthy) elites gaining their way to power? It's not exactly proving his point nor does it convince me.

"Bush's primarying (in 2024) also had gerontocratic roots. It is in foreign policy that the younger and older Americans is clearest". While yes, this is true, there is more to it. Bush was painted as a radical, and while young, had more issues with the behemoth AIPAC group.

It's not to say AIPAC isn't supported by old money, but let's not do correlation = causation. This is another form of rich people's interest.

"The effect of all this is gerontocratic for a simple reason. Evan a young person in office is doing the bidding of the same donors who once propped up the old guy. [...] The younger politicians who inherit their seats are serving the same old money"

But this old money is the culmination of affluent family fortunes. It is not the case of simply "old people rich", but that the rich serve their own interests sans age.

Moyn actually describes this "It's a young face for old interests."

I'm not one to defend Baby Boomers, but doesn't this counteract the idea of America being gerontocratic? Could it not also be oligarchic or rather influenced by major wealth disparity?

The Ellison family is an example of what I mean. The elder billionaire monarchs are decrepit but still going, and preparing their heirs to follow their footsteps to maintain power. Larry Ellison may have the money and power now, but he is clearly grooming millennial David Ellison to do the same. The problem isn't necessarily gerontocracy, but also oligarchy, no? The older people will bequeath an inheritance you know.

"Campaign finance is glaring special case of a general truth: the older you are, the more likely you are to have resources that can and do increase your power."

"It is a stark reminder of how the gerontocracy of private means is laundered into the gerontocracy of government policy." While these quotes are truthful, is this not more a damning indictment of the rich and powerful, who just so happen to be old?

Miyn touches on the Gray Electorate and I have no qualms yet. "Older people have a lot more of the free time needed to go to the polls"

Although he brushes past the idea that "while older people have a disproportionate voice in elections, it is also generally true that winners are not usually determined because of elder support." Meaning yes, there is more to this and there is a lack of motivation in the young.

Anyway, I find the idea of abolishing the Senate as a pie in the sky fantasy with no real chance. Term limits though would remedy much of the problem.

Moyn also asks rhetorically if the existence of the Senate is "still offensive?" He views the Senate as our form of the House of Lords and sees the body as undemocratic. While he says real abolishment is "very hard" and tries to argue other ways for reform, I still do not buy it. The Lords have been peerage, lifelong, hereditary positions until recent, and it is false to construe our Senate as such.

Moyn argues that youth quotas and age limits "could be dropped altogether" if they are deemed redundant. The problem is real life logistics. The repealing of slavery/segregation practices have taken over a century to complete (and some argue that the prison system practices slave-like servitude). Given that youth quotas give power to younger politicians, it will no doubt be hard to repeal if history is any judge.

The nation fights tooth and nail already about affirmative action. Quotas would be a political nightmare, for all ages. And besides, what ages do we consider youth? Does this promote sound legislation? Sure the youth may be represented more, but to what end? This has its own set of downsides, leading to a technocracy of West Wing style doe-eyed dorks. Where is moderation in a system like this?

Moyn posits that age/term limits are not enough to stymie our current issues. He says that mandatory "youth quota in Congress and other political bodies will have to be enacted", as age/term limits "do little to remedy the generational mismatch of our time." This current age of the old having a say in politics is a product of circumstance not to last forever. And this does not mean quotas are the right answer.

Very odd how part of Moyn's reforms is to "eventually" abolish the Senate. This is not only very VERY unlikely (good luck amending the Constitution) but what does this accomplish? Part of what makes the legislative system good is the ability to have conference between both houses so that bills are more helpful and effective.

A bleak view of the near future.

"No more are the advancement and progress toward the prime of life the goals; societies are increasingly built around caretaking and compassion." Those in and of themselves are good things, characteristics every society should have. What he means to say is a society focusing on end of life. Hospices will outnumber Pediatric units. The old shall inherit what's left.

"Today a far broader proportion of the population today is able to reach advanced age and to enjoy the prerogatives of doing so." The baby boom for example. This has been done, in part, due to modern resource/wealth extraction. With abundance comes longevity, not necessarily quality longevity. It is a series of confluences that have made this a problem.

"No factor has made gerontocracy's return in the last few decades more feasible than medical techniques far more recent than America's founding."

"As fertility rates fell, the healthiest societies became demographically top-heavy senior centers."

I feel there is a contradiction here. The birth rates and lack of young to replace the old in institutions has had a greater impact on gerontocracy.

"There may have been an overcorrection for the cultural expectation of millennia that older people deserved respect just for being old." Clearly. While most of the rich are old, most of the old are poor. We confuse a problem with wealth inequality with age, and this is not so. Older people have hoarded wealth, but this has not been and will never be representative of all elders.

Many of Moyn's remarks on the aged have a pitfall: what is the pre-modern definition of old? Certainly different from ours, though not entirely. Moyn himself explains the difference given use of religious text and the understanding that few lived to old age. And as Moyn writes, the move toward Enlightenment principles pitted rule by elders as backwards. But these were elders by 19th century standards, no?

Moyn has a positive view of the French Revolution. Interesting. Do the outcomes from 1789 really bring "innovation and transformation"? I'd argue yes, but not for the better.

I feel that the reason why America votes for the aged, is because people yearn for wise elder statesmen in this age of uncertainty. People are tired of "radical" young people and are looking for older shepherds. This is what should be debated.

"progress implies a turn against ancestor worship and those aged elites who prize continuity over change." Ancestor worship is idolatry, not simple respect our forebears. And change can happen with continuity. It is called wisdom. This is not black and white, there is nuance to sound leadership and governance. (ie, the Israelites when they rebelled against wisdom and tradition par example)

While human societies have committed "senicide", they are rare and were viewed as necessary ills. As the author says, seniors died voluntarily "too costly to be kept alive". Most elders vacated power, left it to their heirs, and either died quietly or chose suicide. There had been an innate social duty that elders be respected yet deposed of power. These can both be the case. The issue is this is not followed now.

"Almost never have cultures spun tales of the gods that emphasized the decrepitude and incapacity of growing old. Age, culture decreed, brought only good things."

False. A: most deities are immortal and thus keep faculties. B: even his own use of Psalm 90:10 earlier disproves him. "yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

We defer elders, but we question them always.

"The elderly weren't gods. But they were closest to the ancestral sources of authority, and unlike the honored dead, they were still alive"

"Earlier societies were not devoted to innovation; facsimile reproduction, from one generation to the next, took pride of place."

Is this idea fundamentally wrong? In moderation we should place some deference on those who came before.