What is a good qualification? And if we come up with a list of good qualifications, why not use those, instead of an arbitrary age requirement, to gate the position? (And I actually disagree. Being a good organizer may be among the best kinds of qualification.)
It’s really, really not.
I think there should be an age requirement. And if there’s going to be any age requirement, it’s going to be somewhat arbitrary. So I’m good with 35.
Really, the age requirement seems like the least restrictive of the requirements. Not old enough to be president? Good news, you will be someday!
Since I am 35 and perfect I am fine with it. Next year though, I believe that 35 is too young and insist on 36 though.
Yeah, since I turned 40 a couple of years ago, I’ve noticed that under-40’s all seem flighty and un-serious. They don’t even know what it’s like to have to hold things at arms-length to read them! I don’t know what the Founders were thinking. No one under 40 should be able to be President.
Huh, you kids are kinda reckless. You’ll settle down in ten years or so.
Does anyone believe there should literally be no age requirement? Should we be able to elect a 17 year old? Maybe just elect “Kid President” from those YouTube videos?
Or are we just making jokes about the reasonable point that it is hard to come to a consensus on specifically what the age requirement should be?
It’s less about 35 and more about I don’t want the I’m invincible 20 year olds in there. There is so much more to learn; 35 seems good.
The good news is that even without a Constitutional requirement, you wouldn’t have to vote for a whippersnapper.
Imagine how all the avocados will bork the White House kitchen budget. No way we want that.
The case was that anyone who can vote should be able to run. But if an 18 year old can win a primary election and make it through the general election season and more Americans vote for her than anyone else, why not? Crucially, the office of President is subject to a national vote. That’s a hard enough wicket. I’m not sure why we need another one.
There’s no measurable problem with requiring someone be 35 to become president. Changing the rule offers no tangible benefit to the country.
But again, that actually isn’t why the article is in this thread. This thread is about how incredibly dumb Yglesias’ article was.
That article is a big blind spot in certain progressive thought leaders (eurgh, that term, but whatever) where their arguments, couched in confident, self-evident assertiveness (here are the Things You Need To Know because We Are Decided) are basically instrumental.
I will admit that changing the rule would probably be pretty inconsequential. But the benefit it would offer is obvious: great candidates younger than 35 are ineligible. Great candidates who aren’t natural citizens are ineligible. It’s dumb to restrict your pool of potential candidates for arbitrary reasons, particularly when the office is filled by tabulating a vote.
If the incredible height of liberal stupidity is using a ridiculous example to make a good, but inconsequential point, I’m very happy to be on team liberal.
If you’re take away the “ridiculous example”, there’s literally no argument in favor of the change. The ridiculous example is the entirety of the article.
Yes there is, under the heading “Young is better than old”. Which is a summary of his argument.
Good news . The young think the old are no good. The old think the young are no good, and 35 is neither young nor old. Perfect.
You are reaching really hard to try and defend a terrible article.
You want to quote the part of the article which isn’t ridiculous, and actually makes a strong, coherent argument?
(Spoiler: there is no part of the article that does that)
I think the basic argument is that it’s unfair to ban 20 year olds because of the risk of age-related incompetence but allow 90 year-olds who are at equal or greater risk.
I don’t think Yglesias articulates the argument very well, but it’s clearly the point he wants to make.
Edit: Here are the quotes you asked for.
There’s nothing wrong with old people per se, but essentially everyone has lost a step or two both mentally and physically by their mid-70s… People younger than [29] are routinely trusted with life-and-death situations in a huge array of contexts, ranging from parenting to military service.
Well people who are 20 years old don’t even have their brains fully developed. If it were up to me, they wouldn’t be in the military either, not because they aren’t good soldiers but I question the long-term decision making involved in making that choice. You’d hope the public would reject the senile and crazy and dementia but, well… here we are.
They can hold other offices. They should probably start there anyway.
