It’s Time to Retire the Career Politician

And Congress Is Not a Retirement Home

Message Monday, for technical reasons I am writing from my mobile.

Dear Reader,

Imagine you are boarding a flight and the pilot is 87. You notice them squinting at the controls, mumbling about how autopilot used to be different back in their day. Would you still take the flight?

Actually, it is not fair to pick on pilots. They are smarter than that. Under 14 C.F.R. § 121.383(c), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required commercial airline pilots in the United States to retire at age 60—a rule known as the “Age 60 Rule” in place since the 1960s. In 2007, Congress passed the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act, 49 U.S.C. § 44729, which raised the mandatory retirement age to 65, enforced in FAA regulation 14 C.F.R. § 121.383(d). This brought the United States into accord with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, which recognized that many older pilots, due to medical advances and rigorous health monitoring, continued to perform at high levels well into their mid-60s. So with this change, the retirement age remains firmly set at 65, reflecting a balance between experience and safety in commercial aviation. Congratulations, we have discovered prudence.

We do this for pilots, and for surgeons there is an ongoing conversation about mandatory retirement ages being needed. In the highly skilled and trained expert professions, that are entrusted with life-and-death decisions as a matter of routine, we are wise enough to recognize the need to ensure the timely turnover of responsibility to a younger generation, due to the simple reality of natural aging. Well and good, thank you for your years of faithful dedicated service.

Now think about the people running our country. We retire expert pilots while we give politicians the power of near-lifetime incumbency. When our top military commanders hit 64 the clock starts ticking according to 10 U.S. Code § 1253, and if they are a three star or four star flag officer, the most they can get is a reprieve up to age 68. After that no more. Thank you for your service. But not for politicians, the ones who send them to war the first place? “Make it make sense” as the kids say these days.

The average age in Congress is higher than ever. Many lawmakers are pushing 80, even 90. These are the individuals in charge of crafting laws about TikTok, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and a climate crisis that will peak long after they are gone—and which they failed to stop.

The reality is too many of them are simply physically and mentally incapable of the job of preserving a constitutional republic and passing laws for a society they are too aloof to understand.

This is not ageism; it is keeping it real.

It is about function, not disrespect. It is about a gerrymandered partisan system that allows power to consolidate in the hands of insiders, those who have had power for decades, sometimes long after their sharpness has faded. It is not a secret that staffers, unelected and largely unknown to the public, often run the show behind the scenes when cognitive decline sets in. That is not democracy. We remember the problems with US Senator Diane Feinstein, from California. That is Weekend at Bernie’s governance. How do you scrutinize the puppet master?

The message is we recognize there is a problem, and we can adopt solutions as policy and judge candidates by whether they will support the policy. Here is a simple fix: Representatives step down at 70. Senators at 75. That is it. They can serve with energy, vision, and perspective, then pass the torch, like every healthy democracy should encourage.

For those who think this is disrespecting our elders, it is almost hilarious that the hippie generation now wants you to respect your elders. However, mandatory retirement is not radical or disrespectful. It is responsible. It frees up seats for a rising generation who actually understand the internet, who will live with the economic consequences of Congressional action, or inability to check the executive. The elders need empathy with those who will have to deal with the long-term impact of today’s decisions. Like pilots, a Congress makes life and death decisions, and if they mess up, we are not getting to our destination intact.

We need leaders who are living in the same reality as the rest of us—leaders who are not figuring out how to use Zoom while passing trillion-dollar deficit budgets.

You want a thriving, relevant, and accountable Congress? Then make room.

It’s time. Here’s my proposed Constitutional Amendment

Mandatory Retirement Age for Members of Congress

Section 1. No person shall serve as a Representative in the United States House of Representatives beyond the age of seventy (70) years. Any Representative reaching the age of seventy (70) while in office shall vacate their seat at the end of the current congressional term and be ineligible for reelection.

Section 2. No person shall serve as a Senator in the United States Senate beyond the age of seventy-five (75) years. Any Senator reaching the age of seventy-five (75) while in office shall vacate their seat at the end of the current senatorial term, and be ineligible for reelection.

Section 3. This amendment shall not prevent any person under these age limits from running for or being elected to office, provided they do not surpass the mandated retirement age during their term.

Section 4. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article through appropriate legislation.

Section 5. This amendment shall take effect on the first day of the first congressional session following its ratification.

---

And there it is, anyone who has passed the age limit when this amendment is ratified, will be allowed to finish their term and then retire gracefully. Let’s put this on the agenda.