But they can't even drive!

I wanted to wait until after World Stroke Day to post this, otherwise I would have released the steam sooner.

So basically, one of my friends who likes to rib me about the geritocracy thing expressed doubt that people who couldn't even drive a car in many states, because of age restrictions, could lead a country.

As much as I hate the term ableist, that's kind of it in a nutshell right there. What abilities are absolutely necessary to be a good leader? I believe common sense, natural intelligence, compassion, a deep well of life-experience, and a calm demeanor are among the most important qualities. I see no reason why matters of body or health should interfere with matters of mind or soul.

Do any of our sitting presidents drive themselves anyway???

I would much rather have a president that can't stand up than one who won't stand up, if you know what I mean.

That's all academic, I know, but it really bothered me how inane of a qualification that is. And not because I didn't learn to drive until I was almost eighteen.

Blast from the past

I don't know how many people remember the TV show Sliders from the 1990s, but a friend of mine brought up an episode that is sort of germane to the topic of geritocracy. I know I'm dating myself here, but I really liked the show as a teenager, even if I only saw the first ... maybe four seasons. At some point, even good shows can jump the shark, right?

Anyway, it's the Sliders - Third Season episode, The Breeder, which is like a mishmash of Species and Logan's Run. The important point in the episode is that young people are assigned to be forced organ donors for the older and more powerful.

So my friend wants to know what's to stop the elderly from using us for spare parts if they have all the power?

Well...creepy as that may be, I actually think that people over the age of 90 are not really looking for spare parts. At that age, haven't most people made their peace? Also...isn't the surgical survival rate for the extremely old (hey, let's not sugarcoat here), a bit less than it is for the current people in charge (45 to 65-year-olds)?

I imagine we do have some coercive organ donation going on already, probably catering to the current age-group in power, since they are better suited recipients; however, I really don't see that spiking in a geritocracy. In my experience, immortality is not the obsession of centenarians, but rather the young who fear the loss of youth and vigor as much as they fear death. In other words, I think people my age and slightly older are more likely to prey on weaker members of society than the very aged are.

Oh...for a non-aged-related book on this train of thought try Unwind and its sequel by Neal Shusterman. I wish I had remembered that day, but it's been a while since I read it. Talk about an interesting thought experiment!

Geritocracy vs gerontocracy

A few people have pointed out to me, thanks to their mad wikipedia skills, that the term gerontocracy already exists and describes a form of governance similar to this thing that I posit.

Actually, no.

Gerontocracy existed in Russia during the Cold War. It was a way of explaining that though their leaders aged, they never left their positions in the Communist hierarchy. The system was a static one created by late-middle-aged politicians, much like the ones that rule...everywhere, even here. They were not chosen for their age, their life experience, their values. They just had the right connections and toed a party line.

What I purpose differs in that aging into a position from an unappealingly youthful age (under 70) would be nearly impossible. Those who rule in a geritocracy would already have some serious seasoning before they even got to be so much as dog-catcher. It's not an aging system (much). It's a system run by the aged. No networking. No partisan politics.

And that's different.

The cabinet

I got another 'friendly' question about the geritocracy thing yesterday. How would I choose to staff the Cabinet?

The basic disagreement here is that the Cabinet is currently staffed by chosen advisers to the president, all of whom have impressive skill sets and resumes and substantial political connections. If chosen based solely on age, the skill sets may not correlate well with job requirements, but if chosen on merit and ability, like now, then the young guns, most of whom would probably be between 45 and 65, may be able to turn the president into a puppet.

Hunh...valid argument.

Also, some (all?) Cabinet positions are in the current order of succession.

A skilled Cabinet is necessary for a good presidency. Two words: Jimmy Carter. The US requires a strong executive. It's part of our national character.

Obviously, in order to satisfy all the demands present in selecting the right kind of people for the job, a system of checks and balances would need to be created, but the system cannot be too complex, because the more moving parts a thing has, the more likely it is to break.

So what I would suggest is that each cabinet position from Secretary of State down to Administrator of the Small Business Administration have a set of qualifications that would ultimately allow for the selection of the oldest qualified professional person, not otherwise engaged in governance. Like with Secretary of State, the likeliest place to find such a person would be the oldest US diplomat. Defense, the oldest (retired probably) US general or admiral. The minimum age for serving on the Cabinet should be 70 or 75 years, with possible exceptions made by act of Congress. Determining the right profession-position fit(s) would be something the Supreme Court might do. Just to spread the responsibility a bit.

This would also take the partisan politics out of the equation, which would be very much necessary in the first few decades of the system overall.

Again, I have no intentions of overthrowing the government. I just like to think about other ways to do things.

I just checked. As of December, John Kerry would still be minimally eligible to be Secretary of State. Seventy just isn't that old these days, is it? :)

4,000 candidates

In the US, we supposedly have 4,000 people over the age of 104. I actually read this statistic in a foreign newspaper while brushing up on my language skills. It seems unbelievable that there should be so many, but still, that's pretty amazing.

So going along with my geritocracy idea, that would mean that we would have plenty of people over the age of 100 for key governmental positions, including congress, state legislatures, and local administrations, without having to dip into the younger population for what are now elected positions. Those are readily taken care of, assuming that most of these people pass the Reagan Standard.

Like I tell people, it isn't as though I think this could ever happen. It's just fun to think about.

The purpose, you say?

Today at lunch one of my friends asked me what the point of my whole geritocracy idea was, what I hoped to accomplish with a 'society' rebuilt under those conditions.

Honestly, I'm not a very compassionate person; however, even so, I can see this is something our society, as it is now, fails at. Every time a poor kid gets a free lunch or an elderly person uses Medicare to pay for a bad hip, someone idiot...okay, usually a lot of idiots...bawl about how it isn't fair, that they could have used that money for whatever's bothering them. I hear things like this every goddamn day. Usually from middle-aged white men. Usually from people who have never been poor, hungry, or experienced a major illness.

I think if someone lives to be in their nineties or older, they have experienced or at least witnessed enough of this kind of suffering to have a more finely tuned (or existent!) sense of compassion for their fellow humans. They understand that paying a few extra pennies a year to fight hunger, disease, and poverty is not zomg! unfair. It's what decent people do.

Then why aren't old people out there making a difference now?

Some are. I know volunteers in their mid-to-late eighties. Seriously.

But for the most part, our society warehouses the elderly starting at a pretty young age, especially if mobility issues are involved. For my part, I don't thinking walking around is that important of a qualification for good leaders. I ::heart:: FDR, yo.

We see older people as in the way, especially once they're no longer competitively spry, and as a society we do our best to not see them anymore, either by putting them away or setting up obstacles to participation in public life. Put together, all of that leads to further decline. Sad stuff, folks.

I also don't believe it's suggested much that people do anything but molder in their old age. Maybe the slightest push would do it.

And...yeah, a lot of the elderly in our society end their lives in poverty, which limits their ability to do stuff just as much as it limits everyone else's, you know? Volunteerism actually does cost something, even if it's only gasoline for the car. Usually more.

As a caveat to this issue, this is why ending political campaigns would benefit everyone. It's no longer rich bastard vs richer bastard. Geritocracy helps level the playing field somewhat. Richer people live longer, sure, but then again, the majority of our most venerable citizens are not Fortune 500 people. They're ordinary. Like the rest of us.

Yeah...so answering the original question, what do I see as the major benefits here? Compassion, work ethic, civic responsibility, and life experience, not the almighty dollar, informing our country's governance. The implications are pretty amazing, if you think about it.

Give me Geritocracy

In an increasingly polarized federal republic, the notion that one must be either a Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, right or left, red or blue, has become so wholly irksome to me that I am pretty much done thinking that democracy is the only way to go in terms of political systems. Not to mention utter disagreeableness of every single modern political campaign.

So...if I could reinvent the US government, I would turn it into a pure geritocracy. The oldest living person in the US would be president - currently, this is Jeralean Talley of my home state of Georgia. The next oldest, the veep - Susannah Mushatt Jones of Brooklyn, NY. They're both black. I'm okay with that.

My senators would be the two oldest people from my state, who aren't occupying a higher office. My congressperson would be the oldest from my district. The Supreme Court would be made up of the oldest people in the US, not occupying a higher office.

No elections. No political parties. The same rules applied to lobbyist used to protect seniors from unscrupulous repairmen and the like.

What about dementia? My asshole friends always ask me that. I think we would need something like the Reagan Standard. No one can hold high office if they are more demented than Ronald Reagan during his second term. Even then...he was far from a terrible president.

What about term limits? I think they're pretty much self-limiting. Some years, we might have three presidents. Some presidents might serve a full four years. The stock market will sort itself out either way.

And this way, we will definitely get a woman president. And an Asian president. And presidents from underprivileged backgrounds. And presidents who held jobs far different from what we've grown accustomed to since the days when a haberdasher saved us from unending war with Japan.

Those are trifling things, though.

The biggest advantage would be the wisdom, practicality, and compassion that older Americans (seriously older) could bring to the government. Think of the oldest three people you know. I'm hoping they're at least seventy-five; mine are 106, 93, and 92. I deal with a lot of seniors in my line of work. Maybe that's why I have so much faith in them.

Are you still thinking?

Compare your three people to the last three presidents, vice-presidents, and speakers of the house. How do they measure up in terms of... intelligence, work ethic, kindness, moral compass, sincerity, frankness, etc? I bet they look pretty damn good, don't they?

Mine do.

This is really just wishful thinking. The system could never be put into place. Most of the elderly would flat out refuse. Those that didn't...probably retired politicians already and they're not all Jimmy Carters. You know?

Still, I like to imagine our country run this way. I think it would be a big improvement.