Will The Elderly Stick Us With Trump Or Biden And Then All Die Off In The Pandemic Before The Consequences Are Felt?

James Carville is a vile, mouldering 75 year old man, who long ago lost any relevance he ever had-- other than on Comcast TV. Last night, as Biden was racking up his wins he cackled, "Let’s shut this puppy down, and let’s move on and worry about November. This thing is decided. There’s no reason to keep it going, not even a day longer." The elderly-- who were responsible for Trump's tenure in the White House (and thereby the inadequate response to COVID-19 and many of their own, perhaps untimely, deaths)-- are about to saddle the Democratic Party with another anti-inspirational, insiders-only, vision-free nominee.

Tuesday in Michigan, Bernie's appeal was to the people who will be left after the coronavirus pandemic burns out. He won:

• 83% of 18-24 vote
• 81% of 25-29 vote
• 62% of 30-39 vote
• 51% of 40-49 vote.

Most of the walking dead, like Carville, voted for Biden. The walking dead won. And I guess we don't get a re-vote in a few months, when they're dead. Which reminds me of two things (aside from the fact that I'm 72 years old):

• Most of those expressing great fear of coronavirus to pollsters, said they voted for Biden, the anti-Medicare-for-All Democrat
• Why didn't MSNBC fire Carville at the same time they fired Chris Matthews, their best decision of 2020?

John Harris' Mini-Tuesday wrap-up for Politico-- Biden and Trump: Don’t Stop Thinking About Yesterday-- captured the state of the country's politics: "2020 promises to offer two old men but no new ideas."

16 and 17 year olds aren't allowed to vote. Presumably thiner minds aren't matter enough. Why are people over 85 voting, even if their minds are... over-mature. Maybe there should be some kind of testing... like when old people renew drivers' licenses? "At a transformative moment in history-- when the onrush of changes in climate, technology, demography, and global balance-of-power are creating a new generation of urgent policy challenges in the United States and around the world-- the 2020 race now promises to be effectively devoid of new ideas," wrote Harris. "Instead, this promises to be a race above all about character and personal qualities. It will be waged by old men-- age 73 for the incumbent, age 77 for the presumptive challenger-- whose essential worldviews were formed decades ago and whose essential instincts and preoccupations are backward-looking."

Both candidates are noticeably-- and increasingly-- senile, which seems to be repulsing people under 50 and looking attractively self-affirming to people over 70.

The main idea of Biden’s campaign is, in the phrase that had its origins in a malapropism by Warren G. Harding, a return to normalcy. He has the usual roster of standard Democratic policy positions but they are not animated by an arresting new vision, like Barack Obama’s “hope and change” message of 2008. Instead, Biden’s promise is mostly about the restoration of civility and precedent.

The main idea of Trump’s campaign is by all evidence the continuation of non-normalcy. Disruption was his promise in 2016, and what he has delivered for three years. Increasingly, though, that disruption is less about specific policy goals-- never mind larger ideas—than it is about Trump’s own cult of personality, with its titanic gyrations of whimsy and grievance.

Here’s one to be answered by Trump supporters: If he wins a second term, his most important policy goal will be: What?

Here’s one to be answered by any voter. The State of the Union address, when presidents seeking re-election historically lay out a second-term agenda, was just last month. Yes, you probably remember a carnival-like atmosphere, during which Rush Limbaugh was bestowed the Medal of Freedom and Nancy Pelosi ripped up her copy of the speech. Do you remember Trump’s main new policy initiative or any big promises he intends to make the basis of his re-election?

As a political culture, we are now so immersed in the nonstop news cycle with its premium on insult, indignation, and living in the moment that we scarcely notice when an election that is momentous by any measure winds up with a choice like this one. 2020 will have one candidate who is all about Trump, another who is all about being the opposite of Trump, but no candidate who has defined himself by a new set of arguments about the future, or a new set of remedies about the problems likely to shadow the country or the world in the years ahead.

Bill Clinton, whose 1990s-era policies are largely out of fashion and whose personal lapses are now judged censoriously by Democrats who were once more forgiving, perhaps still might get some credit for knowing something about presidential politics. One of his signature maxims is, Every election is about the future.



Hmm….It would be interesting to get Clinton’s unfiltered analysis of this one. His theme was the Fleetwood Mac song, “Don’t Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow).” Biden and Trump, by contrast, sometimes seem to be urging, “Don’t Stop Thinking About Yesterday.”

Biden began his campaign with what turned out to be a blunder, referring to the Senate that he served in after winning shortly before his 30th birthday in 1972, when he said he managed to work productively even with that era’s segregationists whose views he found repugnant. Though he has dropped fond references to Dixiecrats, he still cites his own history crafting deals in the Senate, and, on a more personal note, his own perseverance through tragedy after the 1972 deaths of his first wife and daughter and the 2015 death of his son, Beau Biden.

Trump, likewise, filters contemporary issues through a personal prism that is decades old. His warnings about the rise of China flow rhetorically directly from his 1980s warnings about what was then seen as the implacable rise of Japan. His descriptions of negotiations with leaders in Congress to other heads of state often use language that sound like the advice he gave in his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal,” published when he was 42. One of his major first-term policy victories was fulfilling a pledge to replace Clinton’s NAFTA trade deal, passed more than a quarter-century ago.

Even as the world changes dramatically, by all evidence what Democratic voters seem to want this year-- no less than Republican Trump diehards-- is a contest over character and personal traits.

In other words... which candidate lies more? Which candidate has a more repulsive and corrupt family? Which candidate is more incapacitated mentally? Which, in the end, is the lesser of two evils? This is the perfect battleground for someone like Trump-- and will be absolutely catastrophic for a traditional old hawkish pol like Status Quo Joe Biden, who has one chance of getting into the White House: Trump making himself-- if he hasn't already-- too beyond the pale even for the morons who vote in American elections.





Neil Young is also old (74 years old)-- but a brand new voters, so he sounded 18 yesterday when he endorsed Bernie:

I support Bernie because I listen to what he says. Every point he makes is what I believe in. Every one.

In 2016, If Bernie had run instead of Hillary Clinton, I think we would not have the incompetent mess we have now.

Does America have the Democrat party insiders, the DNC to blame for our incompetent mess?

Did the DNC pull every political string to stop Bernie and get Hillary in 2016?

Did that work?

Now, are they trying to stop Bernie Sanders again?

Is Joe the new Hillary?

Is that what you really want?

I think the DNC is more interested in themselves and the power of their party than anything else.

As a new citizen, I was excited to register to vote. Outside the courthouse after I was naturalized, (funny word for it) there was a Democrat Party Registration booth. I registered. My first error as a U.S. citizen will be corrected now.

I am registering Independent. The wheels are in motion. I don’t trust the DNC because I think the DNC is pushing their own agenda over the good of our country.

The thing about Bernie for me is he is consistent. He wants our children to have the best chance at a great education.

The DNC will spread their talking point that ‘Bernie is Divisive.’ They will tell MSNBC and CNN to spread that opinion. They will spread it.

That’s because Bernie is not with the DNC.

Bernie is with you.

Are Bernie’s Policies Radical?

Fight CLIMATE CHANGE like it is real.
Eliminate STUDENT DEBT
Make COLLEGE TUITION Free.
Pay for it all with TAXES ON THE SUPER RICH
$15.00 MINIMUM WAGE
HEALTH CARE AS A HUMAN RIGHT!
The GREEN NEW DEAL for millions of new jobs with a future.

These are Bernie’s ambitious goals on your behalf.
I don’t think these are radical goals. Do you?
These goals are opposed by the DNC. Ask yourself WHY?

Listen to what Bernie says- not what the DNC is selling you from Social Media.

I don’t believe Facebook. It’s corrupt and admits that it is.

Facebook is full of bots and trolls. It’s not AMERICA. Forget social media. Ignore it, and replace it with TRUTH. I don’t believe the Facebook social media cesspool of lies, disinformation from other countries and mis-leading comments.

I believe Bernie Sanders.

I think Bernie is the Real Deal.

I think Democracy is in deep trouble. The solution is big CHANGE. Are you scared of Change?
I believe that in these times Democratic Socialism is good for American workers and students. It’s certainly not Communism. It’s the future for the working class.

The USA is broken, as is our sacred Democracy temporarily broken.
Search for Truth.
We already have socialism in the USA bailing out Wall Street and the super rich. How about the working class and the students who want a real future without debt?
What about them?

Ever wonder why the DNC is against Bernie?
Is Bernie against all the corporations funding the DNC candidate’s political campaigns?
Will Bernie hit their corrupt campaign pocket books?
Will he try to clean the system up?
Is that radical or divisive to America?

Bernie scares the hell out of the DNC. That’s why they’re acting this way right now. They are scared because their own power is challenged. If Bernie wins, they might lose it.
Is it time to get the money out of politics and put the truth back in?
Does this require Strength and Truth?

Bold changes. Bernie Sanders.

Do you think Democracy as we knew it is dying today?
That’s what I think.

If you are a loyal Trump supporter, please write NYA and tell your story. We will print that. We want to know about the positive side of supporting Trump.
We want to know your opinion. What is the positive side?

Was Donald Trump elected because of the negative effect on America of the DNC and the DNC policies of its Democratic candidates?
Did Trump supporters want change?
Do Bernie supporters want change?

It is-- was Time to change America. That’s what Trump supporters thought. That’s what I think.

Until then--
Stand with Bernie,
Stand for the workers,
Stand for the teachers,
Stand for the students.
Stand up for Climate Justice.
STAND for higher taxes on the super-rich to pay for all of the above!
Stand for The American Future.

Stand with Bernie Sanders.

Hey... while we're at it

The Importance Of Distinguishing Between Chronological Age And Physiological Age

About a month ago, we mentioned that Dan Levitin's new book, Successful Aging was about to be released. And now it is-- and #2 on the best seller list. This week he did an OpEd for the Wall Street Journal, A neuroscientist says these are the ideal ages for the optimal presidential ticket. "To a scientist or medical doctor," he told me today, "your chronological age is just a number that doesn’t reflect your health. There are 35 year olds with health problems that will vastly increase their risk of death before 40, and there are 80 year olds whose brains and bodies are perfectly fit. What’s important is not chronological age, but biological age, stress load, and overall mental and physical fitness. While it is true that 80 year olds are slower at tasks than most 35 year olds, speed isn’t everything, and not always a good indicator of overall health and potential for long and effective life."

Trump and Biden are clearly senile-- or at least rapidly approaching that state-- and unfit for the presidency. Bernie is older than either and fit as a fiddle and likely to be the best president since FDR. Mayo Pete and Tulsi are relatively young but the idea that either of them would make a decent president is patently absurd. Neither is likely to improve with age either. Bloomberg turned 78 last year and if you watched his debate performance Wednesday night, you could see he's even more unprepared for the presidency than Biden. None of that is a conclusion a scientist like Levitin would jump to but read between the lines of his OpEd and see if you can figure out who he's voting for on Super Tuesday.

One year shy of the constitutional age limit to be president of the U.S., at age 34, Finland’s Sanna Marin is the world’s youngest sitting prime minister. New Zealand’s Jacina Ardern is 39, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele is 38, and Ukraine’s Oleksiy Honcharuk is only 35.

On the world stage of both politics and activism, youth seems to be having a moment. Malala Yousafzai is a leading advocate for the education of women and girls at 22. A group of high school students is leading the charge for gun-law reform in the U.S. And the world’s most recognizable climate activist is 17-year-old Greta Thunberg from Sweden.

Presidential candidates Pete Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard are both 38, and vying to be the next politicians in their 30s taking on leadership roles. At the other end of the spectrum, Elizabeth Warren is 70. Donald Trump is 73. Joe Biden is 77. Bernie Sanders is 78. These candidates bracket the age range of presidential hopefuls. As a neuroscientist, people have been asking me “how old is too old to be president?”

Aging researchers (those who study aging, not those who are necessarily themselves old!) distinguish between chronological age and physiological age. Chronological age is simply how long you’ve lived. Physiological age is a subtler concept that reflects the various life events, stressors and illnesses you may have had.

We all know of older adults who hardly seem to show the effects of aging (like Jane Fonda, 82, Jane Goodall, 85, or George Shultz, 99), and others whose bodies seem to give out in their 50s or 60s (like John Ritter and Nell Carter, both of whom died of heart failure at 54). Chronological age can be misleading.

Take President Kennedy, who suffered from Addison’s disease, and served from age 43 to 46. Kennedy was in pain nearly every day of his presidency, and during the first six months alone, Kennedy suffered stomach, colon and prostate problems, spastic colitis, high fevers, dehydration, abscesses, sleeplessness and high cholesterol (above 300).

During his short term he took testosterone, high doses of antibiotics, hydrocortisone, antispasmotics, barbiturates, amphetamines, antihistamines, procaine for back pain and an anti-psychotic (although only for a few days). It would be reasonable to assume that he missed a large number of work days, and that he lacked the “vigah” that his image projected.

Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in 1919 at the relatively young age of 63, and he remained incapacitated for the final years of his presidency. The presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was famously plagued by missed days due to illness. While in office, Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack (at age 62), developed Crohn’s disease and suffered a stroke. So, clearly, chronological age is not the whole story.

Today, we tend to embrace a societal narrative that the human brain grows and learns from birth up to a certain point (60? 65? 70?) and then begins a steep and precipitous decline. Old age, in this telling, is a time of inevitable loss of function, decay and illnesses.

But this narrative has not kept pace with medical science. From a neural standpoint, there is no reason why an older adult would not be as effective as a younger adult. We are living longer and healthier than at any time in history, and most older adults will experience improvements in certain areas.

In particular, older adults are better at pattern matching-- at seeing common threads across what younger adults might view as unrelated or disparate events. This gives older adults a better ability to predict outcomes, and to solve problems, particularly those involving interpersonal conflicts-- this is because older adults, as a group, also experience increases in compassion, tolerance and empathy. Together, these might be called wisdom.

Research in organizational behavior on the science of problem solving and productivity shows that diversity yields a competitive edge. Work groups and teams that are composed of people from diverse backgrounds-- races, ethnicities, gender, skill sets, religions and, yes, age-- are better at a range of problem-solving tasks and tend to come up with more innovative solutions.

Younger adults learn more quickly and are more willing to take risks to achieve their goals (sometimes a good thing). They’re also faster thinkers and more comfortable with new technology. Older adults often exercise better judgment, have a more nuanced sense of risk and, through their experience and enhanced pattern matching, can see analogies from previous situations that may help to solve current problems. The combination is powerful.

Don't worry, Bernie has pledged to put a woman on his ticket

This strongly suggests that the ideal presidential ticket will include an older adult and a younger adult, and a cabinet comprising age, gender, and geographic and racial diversity. Of course, our own self-interest may want us to elect someone who “thinks like us” or “looks like us,” but the best governance comes from conflicting views. In the free market of ideas, we are all better off if every idea is given a chance to compete with others, so that the best ideas win out.

How old is too old to be president? It’s not a matter of chronology-- it’s a matter of biology. Thanks to medical advances and a focus on healthy lifestyle choices, many people in their 80s and 90s have the stamina, wisdom and compassion necessary to solve some of the biggest problems that face the world today. And the best solutions will come when their perspectives are combined with the curiosity, values, digital nativism and skills of the young.

UPDATE: Alan Grayson

Before he was elected to Congress, Grayson, who had written his master's thesis on gerontology, founded the Alliance for Aging Research, where served as an officer for 22 years. The organization was instrumental in increasing federal support for aging research by 500%, leading to breakthroughs in the treatment of blindness, weak bones, Alzheimer’s disease, and other afflictions of the elderly. Grayson's gave it the motto: "Living to 100-and Loving It." IN Congress, no one worked harder for the well-being of seniors than Grayson. This afternoon he told me that "One of the great shortcomings of modern politics is the absence of reliable information about to what extent political candidates (and CEO’s, and generals) may have identifiable psychological issues and deficits that would affect job performance, whether age-related or not. (And this is true even if you are not a sociopath who writes your own medical reports, like Demented Donald.) People joke about making candidates take an IQ test, but maybe that’s not the psychological test that you really want them to take. Within a month of being in Congress, I knew several Members (and one Vice President) who had such issues, but their constituents didn’t know, and neither I nor anyone else had any incentive to inform them. In Trump’s case, the painfully obvious diagnosis (narcissistic personality disorder-- not exactly what we need in a President) received far less attention than whatever it was that the Half-Twit tweeted five minutes ago. It’s a flaw in democracy itself. As FDR demonstrated, it’s your mind that matters in that job, not your legs."

Successful Aging

A little less than 2 weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 1230, Bobby Scott's Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. Every single Democrat plus 34Republicans voted for it. Who could possibly be against protecting older workers from discrimination. Well, let's start with the 154 Republicans who voted against it, including the entire GOP House leadership, as well as extreme ideologues like Ken Calvert, Devin Nunes, Lee Zeldin, Greg Gianforte to mention a few. And then there's Mitch McConnell, who is refusing to even allow a debate and vote in the Senate, calling it "socialist." Where does this opposition to older workers come from?

Dan Levitin is a distinguished neuroscientist, psychology professor and author. His new book, Successful Aging was released Dutton last week. More about the book in a moment. While Dan and I were corresponding about H.R. 1230, he wrote that "In 2020, it is clear that we still find a great deal of bigotry and repression again our fellow citizens. Fortunately, most of the 'isms' have become part of the national conversation: racism, sexism, prejudice against LGBTQ individuals, members of various religions and countries. One pernicious and insidious form of bigotry persists without any significant organized national conversation: agism. It is desperately hard for someone over the age of 55 to receive a promotion or be hired into a new job. With the extraordinary advances in health and medical science, we’re not just living longer than ever, but healthier than ever. For the first time, there are more Americans over 65 than under 5. And neuroscience research is clear that continuing to work into our 80s and beyond is neuroprotective, helping to fend off Alzheimer’s and a range of diseases. As our societal narrative tends to marginalize older adults, it has not kept pace with scientific developments. Older adults have superior problem solving and pattern matching skills, tend to be more compassionate and tolerant, and to find solutions that elude their younger counterparts. What would it mean to treat older adults as a resource rather than a burden? It would mean harnessing the wisdom and compassion of a growing segment of the population whom we have tended to marginalize. Working older adults would continue to contribute to social security rather than drawing from it."

State Rep. Tom Winter is a progressive Democrat running for Montana's one statewide congressional seat. He told me he's well aware that our society’s ageism is a silent enforcer of wealth and class disparities. "People all over the country talk about the idea of the 'New West'-- cities like Bozeman or Missoula or Boulder or Boise-- that are driving growth and attracting new residents. But that growth is fundamentally unequal in so many ways. The hallmark of rural Montana beyond those growing cities is an aging population, and we need a politics, and a worldview, that responds to the needs of older adults and values the contributions they can make. We must stop viewing economic growth as keyed to younger workers. To do that is to perpetuate our society’s ageism and increase the inequality of opportunity in rural communities across my state and the country."

Dan wrote that his research reveals that our societal narrative about aging is false and out of date. The book's premise is that old age need not be a time of decline and irrelevance, but rather, a time of increased creativity, improvement in problem-solving skills, and full of meaning. He explodes several myths including the myth of failing memory, and the myth of old age depression. He wrote that "Across 72 countries the peak age of happiness is 82." He's hoping that the book will help change the conversation and he's trying to make the point that agism is one of the last biases that we tolerate in society. As he said above, it's difficult for older adults to get a job or get promoted. Two-thirds of American workers said they had witnessed or experienced age discrimination at work. "Employers should recognize that offering opportunities to older workers is smart business," he wrote, "not just a feel-good, charitable act. Multigenerational teams with older members tend to be more productive; older adults boost the productivity of those around them, and such teams outperform single-generational ones."




Singer/songwriter Rosanne Cash wrote that Successful Aging "is the book I need now. This is probably the book you need now. Levitin beautifully weaves hard science with more subtle, subjective agents of change-- compassion, friendship, the redemptive power of work-- into a refreshing guide for those of us navigating the penultimate stage of life."

Dan gave me three autographed copies of Successful Aging to help in our efforts to raise some contributions for Tom Winter's campaign. It doesn't matter how much you contribute but any contribution that comes in for Tom on this page or at the 2020 Blue America congressional thermometer on the right, before Tuesday at 6pm (PT) will give you a chance to win one of the autographed books. We're going to select three winners at random. You don't have to live in Montana and you don't have to be an older voter. Anyone can give it a try. Tom's a great candidate anyway and you can read more about him on his own website here. His campaign is fueled by issues like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, expanding labor rights, housing for all and criminal justice reform.

Bernie Is An Agent Of Change. For Those Too Brittle To Handle Change, There's Status Quo Joe

Those who saddled the Democratic Party with Hillary simply brought us Trump. Watch the flaming assholes in this great video above, spewing shit from their rancid pie-holes about their hatred for Bernie (and, of course, even if unsaid, for the working class)-- identity politics dip-shits, NeverTrump Republicans, rich status quo class enemies... Why should anyone listen to them? Oh, yeah... corporate media washes our brains with them 24-7.

Thursday, Business Insider's Joseph Zeballos-Roig penned a quickie on 2020's Hillary stand-in, Status Quo Joe. He perceives a shift in the foolish trend to repeat 2016 by nominating Biden, exactly what Trump is working for. Business Insider polls since December have been showing Biden's "electability" numbers increasingly heading south. He wrote that though the dynamics are far from being set in stone by centering his appeal as being the candidate most able to defeat Trump and restoring a sense of normalcy Biden has tied himself to electability numbers. If they continue trending downward, Biden's got nothing. He isn't running on anything but and anti-Trump "return to normalcy." Democratic primary voters should expect more from their nominee.

He's so tied in knots over decades of compromise and conflict that he can't even defend his corrupt family from Trump's attacks without exposing that they're a pack of vile lobbyists who have been trading on his name for decades. Is, "yes, they stink but not as badly as Trump's family," a good defense?





Policy, Biden is running on... "I'm not Bernie and nothing will fundamentally change if I'm elected." Even though his fundraising stumbled-- grassroots voters aren't sending him money-- the wealthy are still flocking to him as a safe haven from... socialism!!

Yesterday at Politico, Michael Kruse gently brought up the issue no one is supposed to talk about-- like Trump, Biden is increasingly less coherent and showing more and more signs of senility. Kruse, like other reporters grappling with how to write about it without mentioning dementia or senility or Biden's and Trump's face-lifts and false teeth and dye-jobs, write, unfairly, about age. "His age is the subtext, and increasingly the text, too, of not only his bid but the Democratic Party’s primary as a whole," wrote Kruse. "Even as fading poll numbers loosen his status as the favorite and the mounting impeachment fervor over Ukraine threatens to exact a collateral toll, Biden’s age remains an overarching issue.

It’s an issue because of the simple math: Only three presidents have served in their 70s-- Trump, Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower-- and no president ever has finished a term at the age Biden would begin his. It’s an issue because of things Biden has said and done-- suggesting, for instance, he thought he was in Vermont when he actually was in New Hampshire, dropping that wince-worthy phrase that his “ time is up” in the first debate and oddly invoking a record player in the last debate. His lifelong habit of flubs, gaffes and often garbled speaking now can seem less like “Joe being Joe” and more like an ominous indicator of a creeping loss of mental acuity.

It’s an issue because Biden himself has tried in sometimes awkward ways to keep it from being one, inviting a heckler to run with him during a parade and challenging a reporter to a wrestling match. And it’s an issue because opponents, from Trump (“Sleepy Joe”) to those in his own party trying to knock him off, have made it an issue-- from Eric Swalwell saying it was time to “pass the torch” to Tim Ryan saying he’s “declining” to Julian Castro ( dubiously) accusing him of “forgetting” things to Cory Booker dishing out readymade Republican attack ad fodder by bluntly declaring on CNN that “there’s a lot of people who are concerned about Joe Biden’s ability to carry the ball all the way across the end line without fumbling” and “there are definitely moments where you listen to Joe Biden and you just wonder.” Even the famously gracious Jimmy Carter, who just turned 95, delivered a candid if unhelpful assessment last month when he said he didn’t believe he could have handled “the duties that I experienced when I was president” if he had been 80.

This isn’t just about Biden’s age-- it’s about ours, and the tension between a vast cohort of Baby Boomers who have trained themselves to believe they’re only as old as they feel and a couple of impatient generations lined up behind them, wondering when they’re going to get a chance to take over. And yet it’s about far more than simply a number next to a name. Our sense of who is old in this primary has become entwined with our appetite for bold and new ideas. All three of the top-polling Democrats, after all, are in their 70s, but it’s Biden, the centrist who advocates for a return to a pre-Trump time, who is getting dinged the most for his advanced age-- not Elizabeth Warren, who wants “ big, structural change” and turned 70 in June. Up until this week when he had to have two heart stents implanted, neither was Bernie Sanders, who continues to call for his “ revolution” and is in fact the oldest of the lot.

But there is an entire cohort of Biden supporters for whom his age-- actual and perceived-- is the very thing that recommends him. After the tumult of the Trump years, these voters crave the experience and order and stability Biden promises. For them, Biden is the beneficiary of shifting social and cultural notions that make it harder to pinpoint what it actually means to be old. Federal law protects workers from age discrimination starting at 40. People can join AARP at 50. They’re usually eligible for Medicare at 65 and Social Security at 66. Scientifically, though, a half-dozen aging experts I talked to for this story told me, there’s such vast variability in how people age that it’s ill-advised and even irresponsible to try to draw conclusions about an individual based on a date of birth. “There are people at 80 who perform better than 20-year-olds,” said Christopher Van Dyck of Yale University, “even on these cognitive speed, memory-type tasks.” Furthermore, beyond decades of a healthy diet and sufficient exercise, a significant, intangible, practically mysterious part of the nature of anybody’s aging, said Tracy Chippendale of New York University, is just … luck. Genes. Joe Biden’s father died at 86. His mother died at 92. People, said Denise Park of the University of Texas at Dallas, have to make a determination “based on the behavior that they observe.”

That’s essentially what Biden’s repeatedly asked voters to do.

“Watch me,” he said in June. “Just watch me.”

...We started freaking out about the age of our presidents because of something that happened exactly 100 years ago this week.

On October 2, 1919, Woodrow Wilson collapsed in a bathroom at the White House, felled by a stroke that paralyzed his left side and rendered him incapacitated for the last nearly year and a half of his term. He was, the White House head usher would recall, “helpless.” Wilson, 63 when he was stricken, didn’t hold a cabinet meeting for more than seven months. His aides and his wife banded to do the work of the administration while attempting, too, to obscure the extent of his infirmity. But senators and staff who visited him saw “ an emaciated old man” and “ a very old man” who “acted like one.” It was, in the assessment of one of Wilson’s biographers, “the worst crisis of presidential disability in American history.”

...Age matters. Because health matters. “Eventually, something like what happened to Woodrow Wilson is going to happen to us again,” Nixon biographer John Aloysius Farrell said in an interview. “I’ve seen almost everything-- an assassination, two impeachments-- in all my years as a watcher of politics. But I’ve never seen a president die of natural causes in office-- and, you know, we’re due.”

Ageism

Biden's Not Passing Any Torches Voluntarily by Nancy Ohanian

Almost two decades ago, I was talking with a guy I worked for, a guy with tremendous accomplishments who I both respected and liked. But I noticed he was slowing down a little and there were a couple of moments where I could see the senility starting to creep into the conversation. He's in his 90s now and I ran into him the other day, He seemed on top of his game and as fresh and spry as he had ever been. I'm not a doctor but digging around online I found this helpful explanation: "When people get older, their bodies and minds slow down. In the best cases, the decline is barely perceptible, and these folks stay as sharp as tacks through their 90s or even 100s. They can walk well and get around independently like pros. In fact, some active seniors weightlift, bike and bungee jump way past the age anyone thought they could. In the worst cases, seniors may develop dementia and be unable to remember the names of their loved ones and what happened yesterday. They may still be strong and physical, or they could have mobility issues. Many seniors fall into a middle ground between these two extremes, and it is called senility... If you become occasionally forgetful or can’t remember the name of your co-worker from 10 or 20 years ago, that’s normal. It could just be part of senility, or the aging process. Other common symptoms of senility include occasionally:

• Stumbling to find or use a word
• Forgetting events or things
• Forgetting the names of acquaintances or people you know/knew casually
• Straining to remember the particulars of a long-ago conversation or even a conversation or event from last year.

The key word here is occasionally! Heck, even people in their 20s and 30s may come up against this kind of thing... [T]hese changes are as perfectly normal as graying hair. They can also be just as dismaying, if not more so... If you’re wondering whether you have dementia or senility, a useful question is this: 'Is it affecting your daily life?' In other words, is not being able to remember the details of a few conversations from 10 years ago impairing your ability to cook? Probably not. On the other hand, not being able to remember where the food is every day or not being able to buy food does impair your ability to cook."

When I ran into Bernie in Burlington a few months ago he was totally cooking. We talked for a few moments about James Madison High School where we were both students. He recalled that Chuck Schumer, who, unlike Bernie, was there when I was. Bernie seemed fit as a fiddle and able to slide right behind the Resolute Desk and start-- well achieving this.

I don't get that same idea about some of the octogenarians in Congress, like Pelosi and Hoyer, nor about Biden or Trump. AOC, tased a little about it in her interview with David Remnick for the New Yorker this week.

David Remnick: Well, when you came to Congress, did you have a plan? How you wanted to be? What you wanted to push forward? How you wanted to communicate?

AOC: I think in some parts—how I wanted to communicate, yes. And I think for me, over all, the plan was to try to expand our national debate and reframe our understanding of issues, because I felt as though that was something that wasn’t being done enough, especially on the Democratic side, for Democrats.

We don’t know how to talk about our own issues in ways that I think are convincing, so we fall into Republican frames all the time. And we’re too often on the defense, we’re too often afraid of our own values and sticking up for them. And I feel like we run away from our convictions too much. And so one of the things that I wanted to do was to hold a strong line, and redefine our values, and remind people that I think what we need to be doing right now is coming home as a party. I don’t think we should be afraid of being the party of F.D.R. I don’t think we should be afraid of being the party of working people. And it feels to me that at some point we did start becoming afraid of those things.

DR: And became the party of what instead?

AOC: I think we became the party of hemming and hawing and trying to be all things to everybody. And it’s not to say that we need to exclude people, but it’s to say that we don’t have to be afraid of having a clear message. To say, we believe in the human dignity of all people. We believe that health care should be a right. We believe that all people should be paid a living wage. We believe that, as our economy evolves, it’s time to expand public education beyond K through twelve, to K through sixteen, K through college, or K through vocational. And what we call bold agendas, or Republicans call socialist, are things that they’ve always called socialist. And [we should] wear it, understand that that’s what they’re going to say, but don’t run away from the actual policies that can transform people’s lives... I’ve been pretty shocked with the concentration of power internally-- not just the influence that lobbyists have, which I think a lot of people kind of understand and see-- but how the actual rules within Congress have changed over the years to put, I think, an insane amount of power in a handful of people within even just the House of Representatives.

DR: Are we talking about the House Speaker? The majority leadership in the Senate?

AOC: The Speaker, leadership, committee chairs . . . Congress used to function in a way where each member used to have much more power as an individual than they do now. And over the years the rules have changed to kind of consolidate power, to a very large degree, with the Speaker, with the Minority Leader, et cetera. In fact, Justin Amash, who just resigned from the Republican Party, congressman from Michigan, made this same exact point when he decided to leave the Republican Party-- the Republican caucus, rather.

...DR: You worked for Bernie Sanders. How do you think he did? Is he too old?

AOC: I don’t think that! I don’t think it’s about being too old.

DR: You can’t be too old in this situation? I mean, let’s face it, we’re looking at two guys who, going in, going in to the Presidency-- Biden and Sanders-- they’d be older than Ronald Reagan coming out.

AOC: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I think that, when it comes to age, I think age gets used as a proxy for capacity. And so I think there are some folks that are of a certain age where you can kind of question their capacity.

DR: AOC: I think Donald Trump is a perfect example.

AOC: [Laughs.] I don’t think he’s all there.

DR: Joe Biden?

AOC: I think Joe Biden, his performance on the stage kind of raised some questions with respect to that. But I don’t want to say, just because someone is seventy-nine, they can’t or shouldn’t run for President. I don’t want to use those proxies, a number as a proxy for capacity. I think you have to assess a person’s capacity on a case-by-case basis.

DR: What makes Joe Biden “not there” for you? And if he were to get the nomination-- or a centrist of any kind, center-left, however he’s defining himself, but certainly a center figure in the Democratic Party-- how should progressives behave?

AOC: Well, it’s not just about being centrist, per se. It’s, when you are struggling to talk about segregationists, and you err on the side of discussing them in glowing terms, that is a big problem. I think struggling in talking about women’s rights is a big issue. Struggling to convey respect for women in this day and age is a big issue, I think those are systemic issues. Like, those are very deep. Those are not gaffes. They are problems. And so it’s before you even get to, where are you on public college and where are you on a living wage, I think, just, like, where are you on understanding the people that live in this country?

DR: I guess what his supporters would say-- and even you could make this argument-- is, when you take somebody who’s had a long career, and they were living in times of old standards of speech, political reference, mistakes, when are they disqualified? And when is that just part of the package? Because you’re twenty-nine, and, let’s say we’re sitting here, or somebody’s sitting here with you, in twenty years, and you’re running for President. It’s possible that you’ll do everything perfectly for the next twenty years and make no mistakes. But maybe not likely. How do we hold people accountable for old standards of the way people addressed each other, and the way they were physically with each other? In Joe Biden’s case. Busing itself was certainly an incredibly complicated issue at the time.

AOC: So I think the No. 1 indicator on this is, does the person know how to apologize? And if you don’t know how to apologize for praising segregationists, then that’s a red flag already, because I think people are very forgiving on that. I think people understand that over the course of a career, as the country evolves, our politics will evolve.

But if we approach past mistakes with defensiveness, then that, I think, is indicative of a problem. Because if you’re defending a past position that the country has moved on from, then it calls into question your judgment for the present.

It's worth taking a look at the way Alex Shephard wrote about the fight Pelosi's in the middle of with the younger activist member of her caucus. Yesterday, writing for the New Republic about how her feud with these freshmen reveals a great deal about her approach to leadership and her disinclination to use her power, to the point that she has to be viewed as being completely risk-adverse.

The rift between Pelosi and her left-flank says much about the generational divide in the Democratic Party. But more than anything, it speaks to a profound philosophical difference. Pelosi and Democratic leadership believe in accumulating power, but rarely wielding it. They believe that taking action-- whether it be on issues like health care, or holding a criminal president accountable-- could backfire. Any use of power, the theory goes, any spending of political capital, risks being met with a profound reaction from the GOP, from swing voters, and from conservative Democrats that will ultimately hurt the party’s ability to win elections, and so, retain power. Ocasio-Cortez and others, meanwhile, are arguing not just for the party to use the tools at their disposal, but that using their Constitutionally mandated power to hold people and institutions accountable will lead to electoral gains rather than losses.

Pelosi’s approach to impeachment is probably the clearest example of this schism. Fearing that opening impeachment proceedings will distract from-- and undermine-- the 2020 campaign, she has put the brakes on many measures to hold Trump and his administration accountable. Instead, she has made opaque and confusing public statements, claiming that Trump is “just not worth it” and that he “self-impeaches” every day. She has similarly declined to go after other Trump officials. Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, most recently, has been rightfully attacked for his shameful handling of a plea deal with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein while serving as U.S. attorney for Florida’s southern district. Pelosi could launch impeachment proceedings against Acosta. Instead she launched a petition-- attached to a fundraising ask.

While Pelosi has a well-earned reputation for whipping votes and retaining loyalty, thanks in large part to her ability to dole out the huge sums she rakes in from donors, she has also consistently wielded power in this cautious manner.

As Ryan Grim argued last week in the Washington Post, there are historical reasons for this approach. “Democratic leaders like Pelosi, Joe Biden, Steny Hoyer and Chuck Schumer were shaped by their traumatic political coming-of-age during the breakup of the New Deal coalition and the rise of Ronald Reagan-- and the backlash that swept Democrats so thoroughly from power nearly 40 years ago,” Grim wrote. “They’ve spent the rest of their lives flinching at the sight of voters. When these leaders plead for their party to stay in the middle, they’re crouching into the defensive posture they’ve been used to since November 1980, afraid that if they come across as harebrained liberals, voters will turn them out again.” These Democrats are “haunted by the Reagan era” and equate moving left with devastating losses.

Over the same period, the Republican Party has embraced a completely opposite approach to politics. While Democrats have long seen power as something to accrue and wield responsibly, they typically do little more than hoard it. The GOP, meanwhile, seeks power at all costs and wields it with abandon. No figure in contemporary politics sums up this approach better than Mitch McConnell, who has gone to extraordinary lengths, particularly when it comes to the federal judiciary, to use his power to reshape the government. The kinds of bold gambits on which McConnell has embarked-- blocking Merrick Garland from the Supreme Court is a particularly galling example-- are based on the idea that not only should power be used to the fullest extent possible, but that Republicans will more likely be punished for not acting than they will for taking aggressive action.

And in response, more often than not, Democrats are reactive, almost apologizing for what power they have. Leaders like Pelosi contort themselves to appear moderate and eager for compromise. They are terrified about any approach that looks like open, unabashed advocacy for the rights of undocumented immigrants, or restoring some degree of economic equity by (gasp) raising taxes on those who can most afford to pay them. They fear being called tax-and-spend socialists, more than they desire progressive results. And so they retreat, again and again, fearing that doing much of anything could cost them campaign contributions, and, ultimately, cost them seats. Looking over the barren landscape of recent American politics, it’s easy to see that this is not a particularly rewarding strategy.

Another day in the life...

McConnell’s nihilist approach often involves wielding power not for the sake of a specific policy outcome, but to accrue yet more political power. Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez are arguing that their party has the means to profoundly alter people’s lives: They can take action on the border, where ICE and CBP agents are torturing migrants; they can bring to justice members of the Trump administration, including the president himself, for flouting the law and favoring the wealthy; they can fight for economic policies that don’t benefit party donors, but instead make it easier for all people to afford housing and health care. In other words, they can do something. The other option, too much of the time, is doing nothing.

Younger Than Yesterday-- Bernie, Not Trump

Hunter Walker, Yahoo News' White House correspondent reported last week that Bernie is set to announce that he's running. My sources inside the gestating campaign told me Walker is just guessing. And yesterday, like every political junking in the country, they were all reading Mike Allen's and Jim Vanderhei's Axios news that coming face to face with the progressive base of the Democratic Party is making 3 of the most conservative Democrats who were thinking of running-- Bloomberg, Biden and McAuliffe-- start reconsidering (along with the Starbucks guy). Gillibrand somehow thinks she's covered her tracks well enough to not fit in with the right-of-center crowd that spawned her to begin with.

"Michael Bloomberg and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe," they reported, "each of whom were virtual locks to run, are having serious second thoughts after watching Democrats embrace Medicare for All, big tax increases and the Green New Deal. Joe Biden, who still wants to run, is being advised to delay any plans to see how this lurch to the left plays out. If Biden runs, look for Bloomberg and McAuliffe to bow out, the sources tell us. The Democratic attacks on Howard Schultz, after he said he was considering an independent bid, reflect the current party's limited appetite for" what Beltway tools always try to call "moderation," but is actually conservatism. Vanderhei and Allen, like most of the corporate shills at Axios always call the politicians on the right and far right of the Democratic Party "moderates." They were also plotting because polling in Iowa "found that 'socialism' had a net positive rating, while 'capitalism' had a net negative rating."

Of course the establishment will do anything to stop Bernie and it goes beyond ideological attacks. We've talked about the ageist attacks before. Last December, former progressive champion, now a sold-out lobbyist, told the Morning Joe audience that he thinks "the country has moved to the left. It’s shocking to me, but a majority of Americans think that Medicare-For-All is a good idea. Frankly, Bernie gets a lot of credit for that. I don’t think he’s gonna be the next nominee… but he could be. I’m very much for somebody who’s younger. I think my generation has got to get the hell out of politics, start coaching and start moving up this next generation." He then went on to name a pack of mostly unaccomplished newcomers known only to insiders and lobbyists like himself, plugging corporatist Kirsten Gillibrand, as well Kamala Harris, Chris Murphy, who isn't running, and Eric Garcetti, who has wisely announced he isn't running.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote that Biden And Bloomberg Are Too Old To Be President-- Bernie Isn't And Here's Why. It had nothing to do with chronological age, just with ideas and political agendas. When you hear conservative jackasses scolding younger Congress members like AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and telling them to grow up or stop acting like children, they can probably throw Bernie in there too. What conservatives can't grapple with are the ideas these people are putting forward. On Tuesday, Mike Bloomberg said the push to legalize recreational marijuana "is perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done." Now that's old! Really, really, disqualifyingly old. And ignorant. "Last year, in 2017, 72,000 Americans OD’d [overdosed] on drugs. In 2018, more people than that are OD-ing on drugs, have OD’d on drugs, and today, incidentally, we are trying to legalize another addictive narcotic, which is perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done." His idea on pot is from the 1950s. Biden has similarly old fogey perspectives on the world. He doesn't understand Medicare-For-All and he doesn't understand the Green New Deal. It would be a complete waste of time to nominate the Warren G. Harding of the Democratic Party to follow Trump. Trump is ignorant and venal but his instincts are much "hipper" than two squares like Bloomberg and Biden. Bernie on the other hand... he may not skateboard or do Ramones covers, but his ideas are way hipper-- and more fearless-- than Beto's.

Yesterday, writing for the Boston Globe, Robert Weisman opened a can of worms: Too Old To Lead The Nation? That Sounds Lke Ageism To Some. "Fifty-eight years after President John F. Kennedy proclaimed 'the torch has been passed to a new generation,' many Democrats long for another young dynamo, one who can harness the energy of millennials to oust President Trump. That could bode ill for the parade of septuagenarians readying their campaigns."

But a growing movement of older Americans bristles at the notion that gray hair is a deficit-- that the demands of a youth-obsessed culture require candidates with long resumes to step aside. When some candidates say generational change, they hear ageism.

“Of course it’s ageist,” said Ashton Applewhite, a writer and activist whose 2016 book, This Chair Rocks, is billed as a manifesto against age discrimination. “Any call for young blood without evidence that an old person is incompetent or that a young person can do the job better is like saying a black person can’t do the job, or a woman can’t do the job.”

Generational change may be the central dynamic in the 2020 presidential campaign. Age is the subtext of every conversation about new ideas versus experience, every debate about whether a candidate can capture the millennial imagination. And there’s a clear generational split in the crowded field of those hoping to replace Trump, now 72, who was the oldest candidate elected to the presidency in American history.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who formed an exploratory committee last month, turns 70 this summer. Several other prospective contenders are in their mid-70s: former vice president Joe Biden, who is 76; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, 77; and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, 76, to name a few.

Another cohort of those eyeing the nomination is at least 20 years younger, including Senators Kamala Harris of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who are in their 50s, and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, former Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke of Texas, and former Obama administration housing secretary Julian Castro, also of Texas, who are in their 40s.

At the same time, the electorate’s demographics are changing. An analysis of census data by the Pew Research Center found that millennials and Generation Xers-- people ages 18 to 55-- together cast nearly 70 million votes in the 2016 presidential election, a majority of the 137.5 million total.

“Millennials are emerging as the dominant force in American politics and will soon supplant baby boomers as the group that decides elections,” said state Senator Eric Lesser, 33, a Longmeadow Democrat who worked as an Obama aide and runs a millennial caucus in the Legislature. “And they’re fed up that everything in their lives has changed-- the way they work, the way they shop-- except government” and its inability to solve problems.

But some advocates for older people object to the notion that the seventysomethings are yesterday’s news, or are simply “too old,” as some activists have complained.

“Saying people are ‘too old’ is reflective of an outmoded idea,” said Eric Schneidewind, a Michigan lawyer who stepped down last year as AARP’s national president. “If you can get through the meat grinder of a presidential election, whatever your age, you’ve made it through trial by combat.”

Voter preferences don’t always hew to generational lines. Sanders racked up margins of more than 2 to 1 among millennials in his antiestablishment campaign against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary. And while young voters in the November midterms also powered insurgents who won seats in the House like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 29, of New York City, and Ayanna Pressley, 44, of Boston, they were joined by many older voters, especially women and people of color.

Still, a surfeit of older candidates could be a problem for the Democrats, who need to electrify the party’s base in the next presidential race.

“The Democratic Party is getting younger, but some of the candidates are very old,” said political strategist Brad Bannon, president of a Washington polling firm. “That’s a dangerous combination. We’re on the cusp of a generational change, and generational change is incredibly disruptive.”

Rather than tap into that sentiment openly, younger candidates will make the appeal obliquely, he said.

“You can’t say Joe Biden is too old,” Bannon said. “You can say he represents the policies of the past. You can say there’s a need for a fresh approach for a new age.”

The mayor of South Bend, Ind., Pete Buttigieg, 37, who launched a long-shot campaign for president last week, is appealing explicitly to fellow millennials by calling for “intergenerational justice” and stressing issues, like school shootings and climate change, that resonate with young people.

But candidates have to be careful in making generational arguments.

Representative Seth Moulton, 40, of Salem, who’s also weighing a presidential run, was roundly criticized by Democratic loyalists when he called for a “new generation of leadership” in initially opposing the bid of Representative Nancy Pelosi, 78, a woman with decades of experience, to be House speaker. One lesson: Many voters don’t see women, largely absent from the power structure until recently, as part of the old guard.

Youthful Democrats who can draw a generational contrast more artfully have been rewarded in presidential races over the past decades. Kennedy was 43 when he was elected president in 1960, while Bill Clinton was 46 when he won his race in 1992, and Barack Obama was 47 when elected in 2008. All of them defeated older Republican candidates-- and succeeded older Republican incumbents.

“There’s a compelling argument for a younger candidate,” Lesser said. But he added that ideas for creating opportunity and improving people’s lives matter more to millennials than age.

“We’re the first generation that will have lower living standards than our parents,” he said, “because of student loans, rising inequality, and skyrocketing housing and health costs.”

But Americans over 65, a bloc of about 50 million people who are among the most reliable voters, are dealing with their own issues, including workplace discrimination and financial stresses, that some believe aren’t fully understood by younger candidates. While they benefit from Social Security, one of the few government programs that enjoys a sterling reputation, they worry about health care-- a concern Democrats traditionally exploit during election season by warning voters that Republicans want to cut Medicare.

“From my perspective, the concerns of older persons aren’t very well addressed in the general population,” said Jack Kupferman, president of Gray Panthers NYC, an advocacy group.

“There’s always a need for new ideas,” he added, “but there’s also a need for continuity and experience. And some of the older candidates are the ones that have the new ideas.”

Looking at the business world, Harvard professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter said younger entrepreneurs and managers bring innovations vital to commercial success.

But she also finds value in “adult supervision,” especially in the political realm. Kanter cited Pelosi, 78, who she said channels her experience into effective action. “There’s a lot of feisty energy that in another era might have been put out to pasture,” she said.

A president doesn’t have to be young to “make room for a new generation’s fresh thinking,” she added. It’s available for hire by smart leaders.

“Every White House is full of young fresh idea people running around,” she said.

By the way, the recent Marist poll for NPR that measured popularity among Democratic voters for their candidates indicated that the only candidates with a favorability over 50% were all pretty old-- Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and Biden.