Gerontocracy is a form of governing that translates to “rule by elders” [1]. While it is not inherently undemocratic, the consequences of gerontocracy—especially in the U.S.—are very apparent. The decreasing generational diversity seen in D.C. has led to a severed connection between the older members of Congress and the younger, but populous generation of Americans. Misrepresentation and legislative stagnation are a few of the many consequences arising from American gerontocracy. Consequently, these issues compromise the government’s ability to respond to the changing socioeconomic climate of America and ultimately hurt the country’s people.

The U.S. population has a median age of 38.9 years [2] while the House and Senate have a median age of 57.9 years and 65.3 years respectively [3]. Unsurprisingly, this creates a concerning predicament since young Americans have priorities and values that differ from older lawmakers. Climate change, wealth inequality, and issues surrounding racial inequality are examples of salient issues that younger voters prioritize [4]. However, these are mostly downplayed or ignored by the older legislators who tend to prioritize other issues such as social security, Medicare, and pharmaceutical needs [5]. Modern issues that young Americans prioritize would naturally be better addressed by that same generation, and it shows beyond numerical discrepancies. Earlier this year, the congressional hearings regarding TikTok, a popular social media app among teens and young adults, demonstrated the blatant lack of knowledge several congresspeople had about social media [6]. It is very difficult for older lawmakers to connect with constituents who are decades younger, and this correlates to a harmful disconnect between D.C. and the people. Increasing the generational diversity in Congress will allow the important issues of young Americans to be properly and adequately addressed by legislators who understand their values.

However, ushering in a new generation of politicians has major hurdles, such as overcoming the incumbency advantage, political polarization, and political complacency. These issues are not necessarily the direct consequences of gerontocracy, but the connection between them is still very concerning.

The power of incumbency—the advantaged ability for current seats to hold their positions over extended periods of time—allows older legislators to easily maintain congressional power, which leads to a decline in accountability and the undermining of democracy. Once a member of Congress wins a seat, it is very difficult for other candidates to overcome this incumbency advantage, and this draconian disparity was recently put on full display. During the 2022 Senate election, all incumbents on the ballot were reelected, a feat that had not been seen for over a century [7]. The correlation between the incumbency advantage and gerontocracy is a very clear one; legislators who are effortlessly able to stay in office will age in their position and exacerbate the presence of gerontocracy. Congress has an abysmal approval rate of 13% and there have been various concerns over the mental fit of several older members [8]. However, these same legislators effortlessly remain in office, carrying on this undemocratic legacy while simultaneously downplaying the needs of many Americans. Casey Burgat, the director of the Legislative Affairs program at the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University, sums it up best. He says, given Congress’s appalling unpopularity, “it makes a lot of sense to refresh the people who serve in that institution” [9]. A major congressional reform to expand generational diversity can put faith back into Americans and revitalize Congress’s ability to overcome polarization through compromise, another salient issue D.C. faces.

Political polarization has existed for several decades, but these issues have become drastically inflamed by U.S. gerontocracy. Political polarization has reinforced the notion that only two opposing ideologies and parties exist. However, the modern political ideologies of Americans are much more nuanced than the liberal-conservative and Democrat-Republican systems seen in D.C. The Pew Research Center found that the ideological breakdown of Americans can be adequately categorized into nine separate groups in the ideological spectrum [10]. It is increasingly difficult for young voters to support the leaders of either party because the increasingly radical nature of either side is less accommodating to the growing number of younger moderates. Young people—ages 18 to 29—who consider themselves moderate have more than doubled since 2008 from 19 percent to 45 percent [11]. Despite this trend towards centrism, there is a lack of moderate candidates because they face a severe disadvantage compared to ideologues who fit better into the extreme partisan polarization [12]. Consequently, Americans are forced to vote for the same candidates, which further entrenches the country into a radical two-party system and puts new moderate candidates at an even greater disadvantage. Gerontocracy speeds up this destructive cycle by eliminating opportunities for younger politicians to intervene on a much-needed generational level. Without new political perspectives, Congress will continue to become more complacent and the damage from polarization will eventually be irreversible.

Gerontocracy may not be the primary cause of these institutional problems, but it greatly agitates the situation and compromises the ability of the country’s government to address these issues. Despite America being the pioneer of modern democracy, it is beginning to lose its ways of governance. Utah’s senator Mitt Romney spoke on behalf of many Americans when he asserted that “it's time for a new generation of leaders” and that “they're the ones that need to make the decisions that will shape the world they will be living in” [13].

Substantial quantitative data demonstrates the detrimental effects of gerontocracy, but the most apparent and concerning evidence can be seen in current U.S. events. The 118th Congress is the oldest congressional session America has seen in a century and the Senate is as old as it has ever been. Diane Feinstein recently passed away, holding her California seat until the age of 90, and 81-year-old Mitch McConnell’s “freezes” have brought up questions about his mental capabilities [14]. Even more concerning, however, is the fact that U.S. gerontocracy is not only limited to Congress.

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, it is becoming increasingly likely that Americans will have to choose between Joe Biden [15], the 82-year-old incumbent, and Donald Trump, the 78-year-old former president, both of whom are the oldest presidents America has ever seen [16]. An octogenarian in the country’s highest office is unheard of, and its possibility is concerning to many Americans, with 77% believing that Biden is too old to effectively be president in 2024 [17].

Naturally, the older people get, the higher the risk of something going wrong [18]. However, that does not necessarily imply how well older people can govern. Despite being older than Biden at 83 years old, Nancy Pelosi has been a very influential politician for decades and one that many legislators look to for guidance [19]. Most notably, the lack of concern about her health is a testament to the fact that older politicians can still be very active and effective. Even so, the number of aging congresspeople with possibly hindering health issues in influential government positions seems more frequent and brings up the question of whether this is in the best interest of Congress [20]. Moreover, there is still a lack of generational diversity and representation for young Americans, which undermines the welfare of American democracy.

While U.S. gerontocracy poses a severe threat to the American people and the country’s functionality, there are several possible ways to mitigate the damage of gerontocracy and prevent its growth. Some are more plausible than others.

A popular potential remedy is to enforce term limits or age limits on members of Congress. While simple, both are unconstitutional and would have overcome the near-impossible task of amending the U.S. Constitution. Arkansas attempted to impose term limits for prospective incumbents in both the House and Senate, a case that went to the Supreme Court. In the case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the court ruled that the Framers could have implemented term limits but did not do so. This implies that they did not intend for congressional term limits to be part of the Constitution [21]. Jeremy Paul, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law, agreed that the same logic could be used for age limits because “whether you're talking about adding term limits or whether you're talking about a maximum age, you're still changing the qualifications that are set out in the Constitution” [22].

An alternative solution to mitigate gerontocracy is to increase the voter turnout of young Americans. During the 2022 midterm election, turnout decreased for voters who were under the age of 65 while turnout for those older than 65 years old increased [23]. This is primarily due to the concerning lack of outreach to younger Americans about politics and campaigns. Almost a third of “young voters” ages 18-29 who did not vote in 2022 said they either did not have enough information about the candidates or where to vote or said they had problems with in-person or absentee voting [24]. Only about half of that same age group were contacted by any political organization and nearly 40% of the “young voters” who did not vote in 2022 said they did not align with either party [25]. Raising political awareness among young voters and nominating more candidates that match their values can increase turnout and provide more representation to the heavily absent young Americans.

An interesting third option is creating a federal program that allows young political scholars to gain early experience in the intricacies of Congress. This would eliminate the need for politicians to invest in their later years for an opportunity to hold a seat. While this idea is an ambitious one, it is a potentially fruitful endeavor. The goal of such a program would be to find mature students interested in leading America’s institutions and build up their knowledge through direct experience with legislators. Congress does offer various internship opportunities, but there is no centralized program to prepare future legislators [26]. This program would give young politicians an amazing opportunity to begin building a platform for future campaigns, connecting with future constituents, and observing where congressional reforms are needed. The ability to achieve these goals at an early stage eliminates some of the monumental disadvantages young politicians face and serves as an early career starting point.

As many Americans continue to express their concerns over the ramifications of U.S. gerontocracy, there is increasing anticipation for the 2024 elections. It would be unsurprising to witness a large influx of young voters eager to voice their desire for legislative reform on a generational level. The question of restoring American democracy and representation is no longer a question of if, but when.