Jacob’s Reviews > Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth―and What to Do About It > Status Update

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?