Late middle age Democrats wanted to be led by the elderly, but now they want to be guided by children

by philg

My Facebook feed is a good indication of how Democrats aged 40-65 think.

In 2016, these folks yearned to be led by a senior citizen. They would have been happy with Bernie Sanders (77 years old) or Hillary Clinton (71), for example, tottering up the stairs to the White House.

In 2018, they were admiring Stormy Daniels (40) for her bravery and her attorney, Michael Avenatti (48), for his determination and possible Presidential candidacy.

These days, however, they post panegyrics to the wisdom of people young enough to be their children, e.g., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (age 29; “in the media mostly because she’s good-looking,” says an independent friend) and Pete Buttigieg (37).

This seems fickle to me. Google and Facebook don’t change their minds every few years about what age person they want to see in various roles within their companies. Why would passionate Democrats swing wildly between thinking that a senior citizen has the requisite life experience to be their leader and deciding that actually the most sensible choice is to follow the guidance of a 29-year-old?

[More worrisome to me personally: Why the apparent dismissal of those of us in, um, later middle age?]

15 thoughts on “Late middle age Democrats wanted to be led by the elderly, but now they want to be guided by children”

  1. You should go read up on Terry McAuliffe. He is 63 and has a ton of private business experience. He is the former Virginia Governor and long time health care reform champion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_McAuliffe

    Or read up on John Delaney. He is 58 and also has ton of private business experience. He was governor of Maryland. He wants to bring jobs to rural America.

    Both seem like they are the right age and have lots of experience. We will see how they perform in the initial primaries versus their older opponents.

  3. Democrats should recruit Sher to run. She seems more responsible than all current Dem contenders and she is a celebrity.

  4. It’s interesting that people in their twenties can now be regarded as only just emerging from childhood.

    According to Nesca Robb’s biography of William of Orange, “At fifteen a boy or girl of the seventeenth century, though still in tutelage, was looked upon as almost grown up.” William led the Dutch resistance against French invasion at the age of 21, in the crisis of 1672.

    Another William, Pitt the Younger, became Prime Minister of England at the age of 24, in 1783. Horatio Nelson became captain of a warship at the age of 21, in 1781. And so on. Even as late as the 20th Century, Andrew Cunningham, later First Sea Lord, went to war in South Africa at the age of 16.

    Such youthful responsibilities are virtually impossible now, aren’t they? Perhaps our societies are simply less meritocratic and open to talent, of whatever age, than those of two or three hundred years ago?

  5. You forgot to mention Joe Biden (76).

    The main argument against gerontocracy is lack of energy and cognitive decline, although I have to say I am impressed by the stamina of both Trump and Clinton during their grueling campaigns.

  6. philg, getting $millions for that is comparable in fun to winning Battle of the Little Bighorn. But Caster forces were overwhelmed by numbers and repeating rim-fire rifles of native American worriers while US troops were armed with single-shot springfiled trap door design with more range. So 13 year old was probably menacing those who were already down. Modern military starts at 18, Romans allowed 17 year olds but mostly older worriers into earlier legions, Moses counted from 20 years + for the legions (modern Israel lowered age to 18)

  8. This seems fickle to me. Google and Facebook don’t change their minds every few years about what age person they want to see in various roles within their companies. Why would passionate Democrats swing wildly between thinking that a senior citizen has the requisite life experience to be their leader and deciding that actually the most sensible choice is to follow the guidance of a 29-year-old?

    Once again, you’ve got a truly bizarre take on something that’s particularly interesting. A simple explanation is that these people do not, in fact, “swing wildly”. They just happen to think that good ideas are not limited to people in a narrow age range.

    Of course, it’s highly likely that you’re mischaracterizing the views of these people in the first place.

    • Vince, yeah for some reason Republicans see judging people “on your team” based on their actions and ideals as a weakness.

      Also the idea that government should be run as a business still holds water, despite Trumps utter failure to accomplish anything even with his stellar business background.

  9. Watch the Breakfast Club again and you’ll understand everything you need to know about this question.

  10. “My Facebook feed is a good indication of how Democrats aged 40-65 think.”

    Why is that? Would be an interesting new scientific theory.

  11. As an independent voter , it always seemed to me that Democrats are like children. They think money grows on trees. “The government should spend more on this, on that, on everything”. It doesn’t matter if it is a professor, a public school teacher, a unionized worker, or a fast food worker. They all think the government has the power to magically make anything happen, and at whatever cost is necessary (just tax the rich! or make the fed print more money!). Why is it that these people think the world works that way? Are they all so gullible as to think something like the New Green Deal is even feasible? Republicans are no better – they also live in la-la land (cut taxes but also raise spending!).

Comments are closed.