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  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.
I imagine the military likes 20 year olds (and younger) because they are easier to mold.
A 20 year old brain looks much, much better than a 70 year old brain. The vast majority of 70 year olds have some degree of brain damage.
The craziness of the 70+ you’d hope will be self-evident… they have history, lots of it to look at. It turns out, starting in 2016, some voters just don’t care. If the problem occurs while in office, we have a system in place for that, and we have had presidents with past difficulties before anyway.
OK, but you could replace 70+ with 20 and it would be equally true.
Not really. We lack the history part. If we’re not supposed to judge people by what they did during their teen years, at least not fully, we can’t even judge them on what happened essentially yesterday. The history part is key here. There are years to draw from, professional, communal, whatever the heck they’ve been doing as an adult.
Really? The point and supporting argument of the entire article is… Two sentences? Your post stating this is longer the supposed argument itself.
Come on. There is no argument being presented. It’s a bad article. Its point is that the Constitution should be changed so that Cortez can run for president. That’s the vast majority of the article.
The only reason people are ignoring that blatantly obvious fact is that it’s dumb. Folks are tying themselves in knots to try and defend a dumb article.
But that’s what it is. It’s dumb.
We had a 24 year old Prime Minister, back when we were a superpower, and he coped with the demands of the office ok.
Brains don’t really finish baking until 25/26. And I agree with Nesrie, you need to be older so people can look into your history. At 20 you literally have no history. Everything is “teenage bullshit”. 35 is fine as an arbitrary number that recognizes your brain is done developing and gives you a decade of time to show said development and where you stand, how you think, etc.
We don’t need any 30yo former Presidents around, soaking up lifetime Secret Service protection. Clearly the age should be increased to keep future costs down.
History isn’t everything. For one thing, people change. We allow ex-felons to run for president, after all. Why is someone with a criminal history preferable to someone with no history?
Furthermore, some people judge others not based on their history, but on how the act right now. If you don’t fall into that group, you don’t have to vote for a 20 year old. But you shouldn’t force everyone else to use your criteria.
Like I said, the argument is poorly made. But it’s still there.
It’s a good thing I didn’t say “history is everything”. It will certainly provide information. I am fine with our laws as they are. If you’re not fine with it, go gather all the 20 year olds, get them to replace most of Congress, probably a President and a fair amount of lobbyist and by the time they’re 35, maybe they’ll get close to changing it.
Are you worried the great candidates under 35 are going to spoil before they’re eligible? Again, the nice thing about the age requirement is it’s just saying “not yet”. If they’re such good candidates, they’ll still be good candidates in a few years.
Well, it’s about you saying it was dumb, and everyone else kinda disagreeing.