I missed this earlier, but the indefatigable John Davenport had an Op-Ed published in the August 15 issue of the Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey): “Americans do not want a gerontocracy.” Following the argument of his Democracy Amendments, John makes the case for a constitutional amendment for age limits for office:

It is thus a safe bet that at least three-quarters of American adults would support a constitutional amendment to set a 75 as a maximum age, even if some would prefer a lower number. That could be enough to get such an amendment ratified if it ever reached state capitols or state ratifying conventions. It would mean that no president could be inaugurated later than a day shy of their 72nd birthday.

It sounds sensible enough in principle, but the Devil is in the details. John’s “safe bet” amendment, if put in place today, would exclude Jill Stein from the running and may just narrowly include Cornel West: Stein is 74, West, 71 (I can’t find West’s birthday online). Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is 59. Yet Stein strikes me as a much better candidate than Harris: she’s just as vigorous, but smarter, more articulate, more principled, and less addicted to perpetual warfare.

Age should not be a strike against a candidate like Stein in a race like this. Age thresholds are a proxy variable for cognitive or physical impairment, but proxy variables are notoriously unreliable at conveying relevant information. In that respect, they’re a lot like proxy wars, which are notoriously unreliable at delivering victory, security, or justice. Not an accident that both things are stake here, and least implicitly, on the ballot.

Granted, the Davenport Amendment would exclude the 78-year-old Donald Trump, which is a good thing, though it seems to me that there’s also something to be said for ad hoc solutions of the Thomas Crooks variety in cases like that. That’s just a thought intended for debate, by the way, not an intention or a policy proposal. But to borrow an idea of Jonathan Haidt’s, I think it’s time to reject the idea of trigger warnings or safe spaces for US Presidents, and at least consider the possibility that we’re better off without them. Enough with the coddling of the American presidential candidate, already! I don’t know whether what kills them makes them stronger–I guess not–but maybe the better question is what it does for us.

I guess I would make 80 the maximum age at inauguration, which would only have excluded Biden in this race, leaving the rest to case-by-case discretion. Unfortunately, there’s no constitutional fix for collective stupidity or self-delusion, and if Americans really want to insist, in defiance of obvious fact, that a cognitively impaired person can be President, they’ll find ways to subvert any constitutional amendment, no matter how well crafted.

At the end of the day, all I can say is: I hope they die before I get old. That’s not a serious policy proposal, but in a fair number of cases, if I had the power to make it one, I would.