upworthy

politics

Politics

It's time for every American to take a deep breath, step back, and have a long look in the mirror

Yes, every single one of us, whatever our political persuasion.

Photo credit: Canva

Political polarization is out of control. It doesn't have to be this way.

What I'm going to share here may well be futile, and many people who need to hear this message and take it to heart probably won't. But America is at a precipice we've been hurtling toward for years, and if we don't do something now to slow the momentum, I fear we'll soon find ourselves plummeting over a proverbial cliff, one and all. It's worth an attempt to pull us back from the brink.

We all know that political polarization in the U.S. is reaching a fever pitch. What many people don't seem to recognize is how they individually play a role in it, especially those who are adamant that the "other side" is to blame for the division. As a lifelong political independent, it's been terrifying to watch my fellow Americans become more and more entrenched in hyper-partisanship, seemingly unaware of how they themselves are contributing to the problem, simply by allowing themselves to be pulled further into the partisan binary.

left, right, politics, partisanship, political ideology We can't divide America into "left" and "right." Photo credit: Canva

Democrats say Republicans are the problem. Republicans say Democrats are the problem. The vast majority of us absentmindedly use black-and-white ideological terminology that line up with our political parties to describe our fellow Americans—liberal or conservative, left or right, red or blue—as if 342 million people fit neatly into two political/ideological boxes. As a result, many Americans have found a home and an identity in those boxes, and unfortunately, some have built them into fortresses from which to shoot at the other side—figuratively and literally.

But no matter how people feel about one box or the other, neither of them is really the problem that brought us here. The problem is the premise that they are built on, which is that there are two opposing sides in the first place. It was inevitable that partisanship in a two-party system would eventually lead to an intractable division featuring extreme, binary thinking pushed by those who benefit from that polarization. The "other side" isn't just different, it's depraved. The “other side" isn't just misguided, it's malicious. The "other side" isn't just wrong, it's evil. This kind of thinking is a feature, not a bug.

george washington, party politics, two-party system, farewell address, partisanship George Washington tried to warn us about the perils of partisanship. Giphy

George Washington tried to warn us about this in 1796 when he said that the "spirit of party" was America's "worst enemy" and would eventually lead us to our demise. We're right there, right now. Partisanship has been fully weaponized by those seeking and wielding power, pitting Americans against Americans, convincing them that the "other side" isn't just wrong, but evil. ("But the other side really is evil!" you might be thinking. Thank you for proving the point. The "other side" says exactly the same thing.) The walls of those political and ideological boxes have gotten so high and so thick that we've lost the ability to see one another's humanity.

Many things have gone into how we got here, of course, and there's plenty of blame to be tossed around. But instead of finger pointing when we talk about our polarization problem, what if we were to look inward and own our own individual part in it, whatever that might be?

I would love to invite every American of every persuasion to take a pause, zoom out, and honestly engage with these self-reflection questions:

Do I tend to label people as liberal/left or conservative/right based on what I know about their beliefs?

Do I assume a certain political party affiliation based on what someone looks like/how they dress/where they live?

Do I describe states and cities as "blue" or "red" and make judgments about those places based on those labels?

Do I use generalized terms like "the left" or "the right" to describe large swaths of the American population?

Does the media I watch or listen to speak in those binary terms? Is one used positively and one used negatively?

politics, political divide, polarization, division, party politics Partisanship is divisive in its very nature.Photo credit: Canva

Do I check multiple sources to find what's true before I react or form an opinion about something I see on social media?

Do I seek out a variety of commentary to genuinely try to understand different perspectives?

Do I contact my legislators when I want to see a change in policy, or do I just argue with people on social media about it?

Do I recognize when people are debating in an effort to seek truth and when they're using rhetorical tricks to "win" an argument?

Am I spending more time engaging with people online than I am in real life?

Do I pay more attention to the extreme voices on the political spectrum than to the moderate ones?

Am I aware of how social media algorithms affect what I see and am exposed to?

Do I see how the extreme element of the "side" I most align with is being used to paint my political persuasion in a negative light?

Do I see how the same thing is being done with the extreme element on the other "side"?

Do I acknowledge when someone from my "side" shares misinformation? Do I call it out?

misinformation, b.s., fake news, falsehood, calling out There''s b.s. all over the political spectrum. Giphy

Do I think of a large portion of my fellow Americans as enemies or adversaries? Why do I view them that way?

Do I want to see my fellow Americans as enemies or adversaries? How can I see them differently?

Am I suggesting we stop using labels like left/right, liberal/conservative, etc. altogether? As much as possible, yes. These labels barely help us understand one another anymore—most often they are used to stereotype people or to take one person's objectionable action and ascribe it to the entire "side." So much of our current situation is a result of the extreme generalization of Americans into two groups, when in reality, very few people actually think, believe, live, and act within the confines of however those group labels are defined. Most of us know this intellectually, of course, but it's so easy to be pulled by language to one extreme or the other in a polarized political climate, especially via social media.

That polarization is purposeful, by the way. Giving people a political identity and an "other side" to fight against is one of the easiest ways to gain political power. Unfortunately, it's also playing with fire. (And if you think only one party does it, think again. It's just much easier to spot when it's done by people we disagree with.)

We can't solve our problems using the same means by which they were created. We can't change the politics that weaponizes partisanship if we ourselves are furthering and fueling it with partisanized thinking and rhetoric. We can't respond to political and ideological extremism with more extremism, even if we think our extremism is justified. Literally every extremist thinks their extremism is justified. Black-and-white, us vs. them thinking is extremism. It's becoming so common, we're getting numb to it.

None of us is immune here—this stuff is designed to tap our most primal instincts—but we have to fight it in ourselves. When we feel a push or pull toward binary extremes (which is easily mistaken for believing we're on the righteous side of things) we can consciously pull ourselves back to a place where we see one another's humanity before everything else.

I'm not both-sidesing here or implying that there aren't any legitimate issues with any particular party/side/ideology. What I'm saying is that partisanized discourse has become a zero sum game and too many Americans are willingly being used as pawns in it. While we can't control what other people do, we can reflect on the part we as individuals play and dedicate ourselves to being part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem.

Of course, stepping away from political labels and partisanzied discourse won't instantly solve all of our issues as a nation. But if enough Americans refuse to play the partisan game and reject the binary rhetoric of left/right, liberal/conservative, red/blue, Democrat/Republican, perhaps we can help prevent the U.S. from plunging into the dark, dangerous chasm we've found ourselves at the brink of.

It's worth a shot, at least.

From Your Site Articles
polarization
PoliticsDemocracy
Nature

"We were robbed": Unexpected rejects from the U.S. National Park System

“If the silver discovery hadn’t happened...Lake Tahoe almost certainly would have been a national park."

Photo credit: Canva

Lake Tahoe was almost a national park, but politics got in the way.

You know the adage, “Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.” Well, something similar happens out in the wild: not every natural wonder gets to become a national park. For every Yellowstone or Yosemite national park, there are dozens of equally jaw-dropping American landscapes that were denied this coveted designation—and the unparalleled federal protection that comes with it.

From Lake Tahoe’s radiant blue waters to the fossil-rich canyons of Dinosaur National Monument, there are dozens of breathtaking natural beauties across the country that are just that: natural beauties with thriving ecosystems, but not national parks. Behind each rejection, there’s always a fascinating story of politics, competing financial interests, and a constantly changing definition of what “deserves” national protection waiting in the wings.

Lake Tahoe, national parks, blue water, natural beauty, nature Many people—including Lake Tahoe’s biggest advocate, conservationist John Muir—fought for Lake Tahoe to become a national park.Photo credit: Canva

Often called “the Jewel of the Sierra,” or “Ocean in the sky,” Lake Tahoe is a marvel. Visitors of the 2-million-year-old lake enjoy pristine snow-capped peaks, gorgeous pine trees, and the prettiest, clearest water imaginable. Mark Twain even wrote of Lake Tahoe, “I thought it must surely be the fairest picture the whole earth affords.” Naturally, many people—including Lake Tahoe’s biggest advocate, conservationist John Muir—fought for Lake Tahoe to become a national park, and multiple attempts were made from the 1880s and 1930s.

The problem? Virginia City, Nevada in 1859.

Eighteen hundred and fifty-nine was the year silver was discovered there, and as local historian David Antonucci explains, “If the silver discovery in Virginia City hadn’t happened, the course of history in Lake Tahoe would have been a lot different. It almost certainly would have been a national park."

Skiing, lake tahoe, national park, rejection, silver If not for that darn silver....Photo credit: Canva

The resulting mining rush altered Lake Tahoe’s landscape forever, most significantly impacting the tall, ancient trees that dotted the Tahoe Basin, which were systematically chopped down to build mine shafts. Twenty years later, it was estimated that more than 33 million board feet of timber were being cut down annually. To put that into perspective, that’s the equivalent of 2,749,999 cubic feet: the amount of wood required to fill 1,150 shipping containers or 88,000 Olympic-sized pools.

Due to this massive degradation of Lake Tahoe’s precious resources, the National Park Service later concluded that the extensive tourism and land development had compromised the lake’s nature beyond repair, ruling it unsuitable for national park designation.

judge, gavel, overruled, rejection, no Sadly, Lake Tahoe's proposals were overruled. Giphy

Why do places seek national park status in the first place? Lake Tahoe has no ego; the land itself does not seek fame, fortune, or glory. But there are several incentives both for the land and the surround communities that make the fight for national park status worth it. National parks enjoy certain VIP privileges, including an army of park rangers and maintenance crews provided by the federal government.

National parks, like the scenic Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, and Zion National Park, are protected to the highest degree possible against resource extraction, land development and other harmful practices. The are nothing short of astounding: miraculous havens for animals and native plants, flourishing wildlife habitats, and the preservation of vital cultural resources.

Then, there’s the tourism aspect: another powerful motivation for communities to support national park designation is the incredible bump in sightseers—paying visitors—that begin to arrive. National parks are tourist magnets, with Great Smoky Mountain National Park welcoming more than 12 million visitors in 2020. It’s the type of tourism that can turn a rural town into a bucket list destination and economically alter a community forever. Think of the last national park you visited and the crop of tourism-related businesses that surrounded it: lodging, restaurants, themed retail stores, guided tours, and more.

yellowstone, national park, tourism, economy, nature National parks are the ultimate tourism magnets. Photo credit: Canva


car, national park, economy, money, tourism Entire economies depend on a local national park. via TravelinUSA

Sadly, Dinosaur National Monument is another destination that never enjoyed national park status and the plethora of perks that come with it. Nestled in the rugged borderlands straddling Colorado and Utah, this huge national treasure spans over 210,000 acres—that’s larger than Bryce Canyon and Zion National Park combined. The natural wonder features an unparalleled 800 paleontology sites and the Carnegie Quarry, which boasts a 150-million-year-old wall full of roughly 1,500 exposed fossilized dinosaur bones.

Dinosaur National Monument also offers astonishing views of the nighttime sky, deeming it an International Dark Sky Park (IDSP) in honor of its exceptional nocturnal environment and supreme views of the cosmos. Obviously, this archaeological beauty would be a shoo-in for national park status, right?

dinosaur national park, rejected, natural beauty, national park, national monument Dinosaur National Monument looks like a national park, but is it?Photo credit: Canva

Unfortunately, meddling outside forces struck again: after multiple attempts, Dinosaur National Monument has not been formally rejected as a national park, but it's progress has been stalled for a long time due to local opposition. Commissioners and stakeholders in the area feared that a national park designation would jeopardize their various ranching and energy investments and blocked any attempts to elevate Dinosaur National Monument to national park status.

Becoming a national park is no walk in the park. Rules are scrupulous, community support is vital, and the power of public perception matters. In many ways, that’s a good thing: the National Park Service’s uncompromising criterion ensures precious American tax-payer money is reserved for only the most exemplary resources in the country, both natural and cultural, in a world that, increasingly, seeks to destroy them. But what of Lake Tahoe, Dinosaur National Park, Silver Falls in Oregon, or the Adirondack Mountains?

For reasons that have nothing to do with their importance, significance, or natural beauty, these landscapes lack national park designation and the protections that come with it. But that doesn’t mean they’re not worth visiting. So, the next time you’re planning a nature trip, consider adding these beauties to your list. You just might be pleasantly surprised.

This article originally appeared in May.

From Your Site Articles
national parks
NatureScience
Health

Depressed by the state of the world? Deepak Chopra shares the first step to finding joy again.

The author of The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success shares his life-changing advice in an exclusive interview with Upworthy.

via Canva/Photos and Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons.

A depressed woman and Deepak Chopra.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult for people to shake the deep-seated sense of dread about where the world is headed. Every day, we are subjected to images of bombs dropping on civilians, massive icebergs falling into the ocean due to climate change, masked men pulling people off the streets for deportation, constant political chaos, and a culture changing so fast due to technology, it’s easy to be overwhelmed.

Added to this is a lingering sense of brokenness that persists from the COVID-19 pandemic era. The result is that in the United States, more people are being diagnosed with depression than ever before. To help our readers break free from the current sense of helplessness, we sat down with Deepak Chopra at Aspen Ideas: Health to hear his thoughts on overcoming depression.

Chopra is a Consciousness Explorer and a world-renowned pioneer in integrative medicine and personal transformation. He is also a Clinical Professor of Family Medicine and Public Health at the University of California, San Diego, and serves as a senior scientist with Gallup Organization. He told Upworthy that the most common problem people ask him about these days is depression.

deepak chopra, wisdom, consciousness, deepak chopra wisdom, deepak chopra speech, deepak in the uk Deepak Chopra, author and guru, at the SXSW London festival hosted in London, England during June 2025.via Deepak Chopra/Wikimedia Commons

“It's just people in general right now are stressed, anxious, and depressed. And that's because of all the things that are happening in their environment, social ecosystem, political systems, war, climate change, health,” he told Upworthy. He notes that although tough times aren’t new, modern stress seems to take a deeper toll.

“Because we have modern capacities for war, drones, nuclear weapons, cyber warfare. And for the first time, I think we are risking extinction. [Instability] has been happening since Medieval times. But Medieval tribal bonds and modern technology is a dangerous combination. So it's much worse than it's ever been,” he said.

What's the first step to overcoming depression, according to Deepak Chopra?

depression, saddness, sad man, depressed man, mental health A man holding his head in his hands.via Canva/Photos

Chopra says that those who are experiencing depression or are just feeling down should ground themselves in their “essential being” (more on that later). But, more practically, they should spend time with people who lift them up. “Hang out with people who are joyful with only one purpose: to create joy in the world. Create joy for yourself. Hang out with joyful people and help create joy in the world,” he told Upworthy. “Joy is the only antidote for suffering. And joy is our fundamental state of being. It's not the same thing as happiness, which is the opposite of sadness. Joy is what you see in an innocent child that is happy for no reason whatsoever. It's our fundamental state of being before we get bamboozled by the hypnosis of social conditioning.”

To find out what Chopra means by being “grounded in your essential being,” we consulted his digital twin at DigitalDeepak.AI. Chopra has created an AI that encapsulates all of his teachings throughout his illustrious career, allowing everyone to access his wisdom at any time.


The concept of essential being, according to Digital Deepak:

Being grounded in your essential being is about connecting with the deepest part of yourself—the true self that exists beyond the fluctuations of the mind and the distractions of daily life. It is about recognizing that, at your core, you are pure consciousness —a field of infinite possibilities and potential.

When you are grounded in this essential state, you experience a profound sense of peace and stability. You become anchored in a state of awareness that transcends the temporary and ever-changing nature of the external world. This grounding allows you to navigate life's challenges with a sense of ease and fearlessness, as you are deeply connected to the eternal power within you.


Sometimes, we can become so overwhelmed by world events that it's easy to overlook the basic things we need to be happy and healthy. That's why Chopra's belief in the importance of maintaining positive social relationships with others, especially during stressful times, is crucial to our mental well-being. If you are feeling down, it's essential to get out and spend time with positive, uplifting people. But it's also crucial to get help from a trained mental health professional.

From Your Site Articles
depression
HealthMental Health
Elections

People are debating whether U.S. presidents should be able to be elected past age 65

There are some solid points being made on both sides.

The White House (public domain)

The last few presidential elections have prompted debates about age limits on politicians.

In today's political climate, it's hard to find thoughtful, respectful discussions online, especially when people disagree on an issue. We've all seen the way public discourse can break down into personal attacks, partisan stereotypes, logical fallacies, and other things that limit our ability to hear and understand one another's perspectives.

However, we have important issues to discuss as a collective, and when we find examples of public discourse where people with differing opinions voice their thoughts and make their arguments reasonably, it's worth looking at. When someone on Reddit asked, "Would limiting the age of the President to 65 be something you’d support? Why or why not?" thousands of responses came in, and the discussion was remarkably civil.

from AskReddit

Considering the fact that the two most recent presidents have been the oldest to ever serve in the office, were both well past the average retirement age for Americans when they were elected, and both had their cognitive abilities publicly questioned during both of their terms, the question of upper age limits on the presidency has become more relevant than ever. Hopefully, this discussion will offer some good food for thought as the average age of our politicians at the federal level still sits close to retirement age.

YES—arguments for presidential age limits

The folks who advocate for an upper age limit on the presidency cite the greater possibility of cognitive decline as people age as one reason, but that's not all. Some point out that the people making decisions should be the ones who will have to live with them long term and that politics needs fresh ideas and perspectives. Some point out that the chance of a president dying in office increases with age, and some say it's only fair to have an upper limit since we have a lower one.

donald trump, joe biden, oldest president, presidential age limits, USA President Trump and President Biden are the two oldest people to be elected U.S. president.The White House (public domain)

Here are some of the affirmative responses:

"Yes, if there is a young age limit then an older one is justified as well."

"I’d support age limits for all politicians. Asking someone to live a while in the world they create is a fair ask, in my opinion."

"I recently read: 'Someone whose time left on this earth is best measured in years should not make decisions with an impact over decades.'"

"I think the young age limit is bulls--t anyway. We need more people in power who'll live long enough to experience the outcomes of their decisions."

"There is a minimum so a maximum makes sense. 35-70 seems reasonable. A 70 year old running for election would finish the term at 74, maybe 75 depending on time of birthday of course. Just for discussion sake."

presidential age limits, presidential eligibility, oldest presidents Should eligibility for the presidency be limited to age 65?Photo credit: Canva

"If the average US citizen dies at 74-76 and retirement age is 65 then the max age to be elected should also be 65. I know humans can live well past 100 but the US culture of health spits in the face of aging gracefully."

"I think the dilemma is that experience grows with age but so mental abilities decline. Finding that point where the mental decline is no longer acceptable is tough. Especially with a role like the presidency where really you should be relying on the expertise of other.

Still I support a max age limit. And you could let the older more experienced politicians work as advisors if they want. They don't have to get out of politics but they do have to let someone younger have the final say in things."

"People should be retired from politics at retirement age. As in you can’t run for office after you hit retirement age. And while we are at it, lowering retirement age back to 65 sounds great."

Joe Biden was the oldest person to become president at age 78. Giphy GIF by Election 2020

"As someone who actually interacts with 70 year old people, I can honestly tell you the mental 'slow-down' really doesn't start until the late 70s or early 80s.

65 is a little too safe but I would absolutely agree with not being able to run past 70. That would make the oldest member of the exec/leg branches 74. Five years might not seem that different but that's what I'd choose. Granted, I'd definitely support 65 over there not being an age limit.

SCotUS, on the other hand, should be forced to retire at retirement age, whatever that is. I feel that each of them needs to have more of their finger on the pulse of where the country is, due to their more impactful position; 1 of 9 vs. 1 of 100/435."

"75 by Election Day I would support 100%. I would almost definitely support 70 by Election Day."

"Agree. 75 by election day is fair. I work in healthcare and people over 65 should have an opportunity to be represented because they have a drastically different set of needs than people who are 55."


presidential seal, president of the united states, POTUS The president of the United States is one of the most powerful positions in the world.Photo credit: Canva

"I get that many people are able to work effectively at advanced ages, but there is a difference between being a professor, insurance agent, or retail worker and being President of the United States. Warren Buffett waited until an advanced age to retire, beyond what most corporate boards would tolerate, but Berkshire Hathaway doesn't have any nuclear warheads. Presidents Reagan, Biden, and Trump have all shown signs of age-related cognitive impairment while in office without any 25th Amendment action being taken, so we need some sort of additional safeguard."

"I support age limits for both physical and mental wellness reasons; 75 by Election Day seems reasonable to me, just because it would have to be somewhere. If nothing else, after 75 the chances a president will die in office go way up, and it’s always better to avoid that."

"Yes. Regardless of one's ability to perform, new ideas need to come into government. The added bonus of weeding out people who have aged out of their competency is second."

"Absolutely yes. They should be young enough to have to live with the consequences of their actions."

president washington, president lincoln, u.s. presidents The only age requirement in the Constitution is that the U.S. president has to be at least 35 years old.Photo credit: Canva

NO—arguments against presidential age limits

The people who say there shouldn't be age limits cite the fact that cognitive decline or impairment is not guaranteed with age and that plenty of older people are sharper than people many years their junior. Some cite the need for people of all ages to have representation, including the elderly, and others point out that a long life an experience can be an invaluable asset in a world leader.

Here are some anti-age-limit arguments:

"No, I've met people in their 50s who would be too incapacitated for the job, and yet met people in their 90s who would be. As long as they are mentally fit then it's fine."

"No, because that's ageist, and elderly people need representation too. Our issue isn't the fact we have presidents over 65 years old; the issue is we keep voting for presidential candidates(even in the nominations) that are over 65 years old."

"There is a pretty wide range on health from individual to individual. In theory voters should be able to judge whether the person's health is a concern. That of course assumes transparency on candidate health though."

"No. The issue is mental decline, not age. Different people experience mental decline at different ages. Some lucky people don't experience it until their 70d and 80s. Let the people decide who is fit to serve by our votes."

voting, elections, electing the president of the united states Some argue that the voters should decide whether a candidate is too old at the ballot box.Photo credit: Canva

"Why? Just vote for a younger candidate next time. You're literally advocating for limiting your own democratic choice... Why?"

"Age ain't always about the number, ya know? Like, got some folks in their 70s sharper than a fresh pencil and others in their 60s feeling like grandpa needs a nap. Suppose depends more on the energy and ideas they bring than digits in their age. We gotta vet 'em on their vibe, not just the year on their birth cert, IMO."

"No. I know too many people over 65 who are some of the smartest and hardest working people I have ever met. It's not the age. It's the attitude and ability.

And the experience in a lot of cases. The type of experience matters. If you have someone with experience making the lives of others better - they will continue to be able to make the lives of others better, even if they are in their 80s (see the notorious RBG). If they have experience with bankrupting companies and not paying their bills, they will continue to be able to bankrupt companies and not pay their bills even if they are in their 80s.

I know more folks over 65 (heck, over 75) who want good education and national healthcare and guaranteed parental leave and higher minimum wages than folks under 40."

The American flag, united states, stars and stripes The United States has very few requirements to be eligible to run for president.Photo credit: Canva

"No. It's not going to change the quality of candidates and it's an arbitrary cutoff. People can get dementia at 50."

"I don’t know that age limits are fair. My mother-in-law is 90 years old and she is sharp as a tac and still in great physical health, believe it or not. Not that she’s interested in running for president. Lol. However, competency tests may very well be in order. I could certainly get behind that."

"No. The president needs to have experience, a long knowledge/understanding of current events domestically and geopolitically, and a deep reservoir of alliances, leverage, etc. for getting things done at home and negotiating on the world stage. Biden, for example, had served in Congress forever and was remarkably effective at getting legislation passed despite Republican blockades: a lot of this effectiveness was due to Biden, Pelosi, Schumer's long experience and behind-the-scenes understanding of how to get things done.

joe biden, choose diplomacy, u.s. presidents Joe Biden had decades of experience in governance when he was elected. Giphy GIF by GIPHY News

I agree that we need more young voices in government but there is ENORMOUS value in having some representatives who are long-entrenched and have an infrastructure and savvy to harness.

This is especially important for diplomacy, which is arguably one of the President's most important jobs. Biden, for example, had been actively involved with foreign affairs for decades and the value of that cannot be understated. Ukraine owes a great deal to the fact that Biden, his cabinet, and his intelligence agencies outplayed Putin at the outset of the invasion, and to the fact that Biden was on a first-name basis with so many world leaders, who he called upon personally to unite with sanctions, Ukraine aide, etc.

Frankly, a young president who only knows of the Cold War from history class would get eaten alive by Putin at the negotiating / leverage table. How can you be taken seriously interacting with world leaders if you were still a kid when they were fighting battles and moving world politics?"

john f. kennedy, youngest president, presidential age limits John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected U.S. president. Photo credit: Canva

"No. If someone spent 20 years as a teacher, in the military, being a doctor, etc before getting into politics and then got the experience to actually make a run, they’d probably be in their 60s and we could miss out on a genuinely good candidate who wasn’t a lifelong politician. But I would say the oldest I’d prefer would be voting for a 70 year old for their re-election as president. I’d prefer they be younger, but if they’re a good leader I wouldn’t say no over their age at that point. But by 75 they should have no business trying to run the country."

"Personally I want term limits for all branches of government and routine cognitive tests for people 65 and over. I do believe older people should be represented because ageism can exist. As long as you are sharp, you should be able to work."

"In and of itself an arbitrary age limit is meaningless. What we need is yearly cognitive tests with mandatory independent verification and publishing results."

"Absolutely not. While some people have significant cognitive decline past 60, plenty do not. Politicians don't need to have the reflexes of a pilot or motor skills of a neurosurgeon so citing other mandatory retirement ages doesn't follow. We'd be removing decades of experience for potential candidates. Solving the problem of entrenched politicians and stagnating perspectives is going to be much trickier than adding an age limit."

u.s. constitution, constitutional amendment, presidential age limits, presidential eligibility Adding an age limit for the U.S. presidency would require a constitutional amendment.Photo credit: Canva

What would it take to put an age limit on the U.S. presidency?

The eligibility requirements to become president are set in the Constitution, so it would require a new constitutional amendment to add an upper age limit. That means two-third of Congress in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would have to vote for it, and then 38 out of 50 state legislatures would have to ratify it. The chances of those majorities agreeing on anything of that great a significance is highly unlikely, but the same could have been said for many of the amendments we've passed in the past. But it's hard to say if a presidential age limit is even something most Americans really want, which is why seeing the pros and cons being argued is so interesting.

From Your Site Articles
democracy
ElectionsDemocracy
Trending Stories