Essay argues America’s aging leadership is a structural crisis driven by elder wealth dominance, low youth turnout, and a self-reinforcing primary system.
Key Takeaways
Median Congressional age rose from early 50s (1960-1990) to above 60 in the three decades after; on-the-job cognitive decline has followed.
Median primary voter age hit 65 nationally in 2024; in New Mexico it was 71. Over-65 turnout was 6x higher than ages 18-34 in primaries.
Americans 55+ cast 44% of presidential votes in 2020 despite being a minority of the population.
Median dollar donated in US elections comes from a 66-year-old donor; even young elected officials often answer to old money.
Author frames age as “the modality in which class is lived” – elder wealth concentration compounds elder voting power into a feedback loop.
Hacker News Comment Review
Commenters split on whether gerontocracy is inherently bad: the Venice counterexample (Doges routinely in their 80s, longest-stable European state) was raised against the piece’s premise.
There is rough consensus that structural fixes matter more than generational blame – term limits and campaign finance reform cited – but skepticism that Gen X or younger cohorts have the organizational capacity to govern well.
The triple pension lock in the UK was offered as a concrete international data point: majority-elder democracies mathematically skew spending toward elderly constituencies until fiscal collapse.
Notable Comments
@johngossman: Cites Venice – Doge averaged 80s, outperformed younger-led neighbors – as a direct empirical challenge to the essay’s thesis.
@throwaway173738: “Organization is a skill that can be passed on” – argues elders doing it themselves blocks younger cohorts from learning it.
