266
Run for Something co-founder: ‘Democrats’ reliance on seniority is our downfall’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
266 points (98.9% liked)
politics
25144 readers
1053 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So the answer is to be ageist instead of administering civics and leadership ability test to the prospective candidates
Got it. Swap bigotry for bigotry.
Way to do better, people
A bunch of rich 80-year-olds should not be running our country. It's why the response to Trump has been so anemic: they're too comfortable and they can't be bothered.
In other words, it cannot be exclusively one narrow demographic. That's not ageism; that's just common sense.
What is it going to take before people like to join reality? A sitting member of Congress with full-blown dementia? We had that in Dianne Feinstein. A president who can't function past 6 pm or speak without a teleprompter? We had that with Biden. Democrats dropping dead in office? The Republicans have expanded their House lead this term because three Democrats dropped dead. Our country is collapsing under an incompetent gerontocracy, and you think pointing that out is bigotry? Get a fucking grip, dude.
Reading the article I don't see any support for your argument. It just seems like a arsenal strawman.
The article talks about getting more young people into political positions, and about having politicians generally stay in office until they die of old age is causing political stagnation.
It's not like it argues you can't serve past a certain age, just that it shouldn't be an exclusive old-people's club.
Stop gaslighting.
If that's what this article was, that's what it would say.
But you And I read the article. Time to take the keys from grandpa, he squinted at the t. V .
That's what it says.
Shut up. Not all of us want to live in a gerontocracy.
I don't think seniority and ageism are the same thing, but a lot of proponents and opponents will take it that way. I think it's really about how positions of leadership are parceled out based on time served.
Seniority and ageism are not
This isn't about seniority. Its a blatant and bigoted ageism piece. Lipstick on a pig, but hey it's just old people who have given their lives.
Screw them. After x age they should go
That's what this, and you , are truly saying.
Goof day
At the moment they are pretty much the same thing. The big shitty bill passed the House because three House Democrats died in office so far this term. Is that not a problem?
We would not have so much aged representation if the party didn't put so much favor on seniority. We can have some old leadership, which is actually a good thing, but the party currently looks like a make a wish foundation for elderly politicians.
The difference is that there are only so many of these elected political jobs. The only way for younger people to get direct experience is to run for them. And particularly for Congress, where there are only 435 seats nationwide and their districts were likely drawn to favor one party or another -- in many districts, the primary is the election.
Yes, these people are advocating for the older generation to step aside. But even if they don't, they are advocating that a healthy party should have meaningful primaries for every position, and have every incumbent (including those older politicians) actively defend their seats if they want to keep them. I bet that if an older politician is with it enough to win a contested primary, even these folks would support them in the general election. (Plus, that losing candidate would have had experience running that contested election, so they can do better next time.)
Bottom line, it's basically the exact same intentional misinterpretation that the right does with DEI.
IE what DEI actually calls for: Look for candidates everywhere, give a shot to them all regardless of race or background.
What they act like it is: "You have to pick the minority candidate no matter how underqualified he/she is".
Same concept as the left wants for our candidates. What we want isn't an auto force out the old guys... we want actual fair competitions that picks candidates by their actual abilities and skills, rather than just the assumption that the person who's had that seat for 30 years, should keep it over a new person that wants the job.
Who did you vote for in the primary?
It's not different. .it's lobbying for unelected people to decide in the shadows what should be done loudly on television by people we directly voted for
Anything else is trump. 2.0
No, it's the exact opposite of what you claim, it's encouraging young people to run for office even if an older incumbent is in the seat, and let voters decide in meaningful primaries.
What the fuck are you even talking about
Saying primaries are "shadowy" and the DNC just decides who's going to win before any are even run.
Which isn't the case, but DWS really did a number on people's heads.
Dancing with smurfs?
lol you gotta knock it off with the borrowed outrage. That’s not what this is. It’s a rational and pertinent complaint about how our political system tends to operate.
Keep being the problem then. You’re out of touch with the supermajority of people by 70. Stop fucking lying to yourself and others.
People who will not have to live with the consequences of their political decisions, on account of likely dying before the bill is due, have no business being in office. It places too great of a conflict of interest and supports the Chicago School economic bullshit of never looking past the current quarter. Sure, there are a good chunk of people who would aim for long-term stability out of altruism but they are not generally those who seek to hold political power until they die.
It's really past time for boomers and the silent generation to allow the rest of us to determine our own fates, rather than continuing to take loans out on their grandchildrens' futures (that we're stuck paying for).
A:"I propose we buy the military $1 million dollars worth of 200-lb canons"
B:"No grandpa it's not 1865 anymore"
A:"That's AgIsT!!¡!¡¡"
Get the fuck out of here. Bigotry is judging people before you know them. We know who the democratic leadership is. There are plenty of old progressives, and almost none of them are running for something. You need young people to get involved in order to replace the old people who have died.
I think I've literally only ever seen this word used by idiots trying to defend people 20 years too old to be doing their job
It is joy age discrimination to say "you're likely to die in office, fuck off" and if you think it is then your right to vote should be stripped for being a fucking idiot
Would you like to have an 80 year old surgeon performing your brain surgery? These ghouls are all stuck in the 50's and 60's and have zero clue what actual people need. The Democrats clearly need fresh blood since they keep getting stomped in key races