On February 19, 2024, Colorado State University's Center for Healthy Aging hosted an event on age limits for politicians, at which Division 20 past-president Manfred Diehl was one of the four panelists. Current Division 20 president Grace Caskie invited Diehl to summarize the thoughts and points he made at this event to share more broadly with Division 20 members. We greatly appreciate his willingness to write up those comments for our newsletter.
As the United States of America approach the next presidential election, the age of the two presumed candidates for the highest office in the nation, current President Joe Biden and former President Donald J. Trump, has increasingly become a topic of public debate. Why is this and what can researchers in the field of adult development and aging contribute to this debate?
Why has the age of the two anticipated candidates become a focus in the public debate? The answer to this question becomes clear when one looks at the ages of previous presidents at inauguration. A historical review shows that the median age of all U.S. presidents at inauguration is 55 years. This is a considerably younger age than would be the case when the next president would be inaugurated. If Joe Biden were elected to a second term in November 2024, he would be 82 when sworn into office in January 2025. If Donald J. Trump were elected, he would be 78 years old on inauguration day. Both candidates were the two oldest presidents in U.S. history when they assumed office the first time: Biden at age 78 and Trump at age 70.
Although age has never been a major topic in presidential elections before, in today’s climate of societal division, partisanship, and social media frenzy it has become a topic—often with an ageist undertone. Namely, with the unspoken implication that a certain age should perhaps automatically disqualify a candidate from running for the highest office in the country. Ironically, the presumed candidates are only 4 years apart, but very little consideration is given to this fact and whether being 4 years apart makes a significant difference.
What can researchers in the field of adult development and aging contribute to this public debate? First, psychologists who study adult development and aging can remind the public that chronological age is in research studies often found to be a so-called empty variable. That is, across the adult lifespan, age is often not the most relevant variable to predict whether a person can perform a job in a competent way or what a person’s level of cognitive functioning and overall competence look like. Other variables, such as level of education, physical health (e.g., absence of cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease), occupational status, performance on cognitive tests, or mental health, tend to be more predictive of a person’s overall functioning than age. Better predictive variables would also include whether an individual has had the opportunity to develop expertise in a certain area of functioning, such as professional achievement or accumulating a solid amount of world knowledge. For example, a competent president should be expected to have considerable expertise in the areas of government (e.g., how government agencies work), national leadership (e.g., how the federal government and state governments interconnect), and international relations (e.g., how the U.S. is connected to other nations). Furthermore, a competent president should be able to understand complex and multifaceted problems so that s/he can make quick and accurate decisions for the benefit of the American people and the rest of the world.
Second, although it is well-documented that the so-called “fourth age” (i.e., age 85 and older; Baltes & Smith, 2003) is associated with an increased vulnerability in terms of physical and mental health, aging researchers also need to remind the public that there are great interindividual differences among adults in that age range. For example, one person may show serious cognitive impairment due to dementia by the age of 70, whereas another person at age 85 is still quite cognitively sharp and may run their business successfully. One of these latter specimens, for example, is Warren Buffett, the well-known investor, co-founder, chairman, and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, who is currently 93 years old but is still functioning at a very high level. There is plenty of evidence from psychological aging research that refutes using a simple number as an equivalent for a person’s competence and achievements. Such a determination should be made through a careful assessment of an individual’s actual performance capacity, including a comprehensive assessment of the person’s cognitive and neuropsychological functioning.
Third, in the current public debate the question has been raised whether candidates who run for political office and are of a certain age should be subjected to mandatory cognitive testing. On the surface this may look like a legitimate suggestion to many. However, upon closer examination things do not look so straightforward and may not be so legitimate. Indeed, several reasons speak against such a call. First, who would determine what the recommended age would be for when such testing would become mandatory? Second, who would determine what tests should be administered, who would administer them, and how should the results from such tests be used? Regulations regarding the privacy of medical and psychological records (i.e., HIPAA-like rules) may supersede the public’s interest and need to know. Such a requirement may also deter otherwise completely capable, motivated, and experienced individuals from running for an office in which they could possibly do a great deal of good for their constituents. Third, in this context it also needs to be emphasized that simple cognitive screening tests, such as the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) test, are not sufficient to determine a person’s cognitive competence in a comprehensive way. These tests are screening tests that can distinguish individuals with mild cognitive impairment or early dementia from individuals who are seemingly cognitively intact. However, a battery of cognitive and neuropsychological tests, which involves multiple hours of testing, is required to determine a person’s cognitive capacity in a comprehensive way. Taken together, these reasons suggest that a call for mandatory cognitive testing is rather unreasonable and does not solve the issue of whether a certain age should disqualify a candidate from running for a high political office.
Finally, it is also important to point out that the current public debate about the presidential candidates is tinged with a good amount of ageism—the prejudice against and discrimination of older adults based on negative age stereotypes (Levy, 2022). Although the U.S. society has made great progress in terms of fighting and calling out incidents of racism and sexism, ageism seems to be one of the last socially acceptable prejudices (Weir, 2023), including that it is quite acceptable to make fun of older adults and basically portray them with broad brush strokes as incompetent and obsolete. That such ageism is quite prevalent in everyday life was reported by Ober Allen and colleagues (2020) based on a national sample of adults aged 50-80. In this survey, 82% of the interviewed adults reported that they experienced one or more forms of ageism in their everyday lives, including that 65% of the adults reported exposure to ageist messages. This exposure is not without consequences as was shown in the same survey. For example, those older adults who reported experiencing three or more forms of everyday ageism had worse physical and mental health than those who reported fewer forms of everyday ageism (Ober Allen et al., 2020). Thus, exposure to ageist messages and attitudes undermines an older person’s well-being and functioning and may be especially undermining to a person’s confidence and behavior if it is broadcasted in the media. Here it is also important to note unambiguously that most of the stereotypes and misconceptions that are at the root of ageist messages and behaviors can be refuted based on decades of sound psychological research (Diehl et al., 2020; Levy, 2022).
In summary, how should the general public approach the age question in the current debate regarding the anticipated presidential candidates? First, people should be aware that age itself is nothing but a number and often does not tell us a great deal about a person’s competencies. Research on adult development and aging has shown this time and again. Second, knowing this, voters should examine the actual and objective record of the candidates and should make their decision based on a thorough review and evaluation of those records. Third, people should be skeptical about and should resist simple solutions to the age question, such as the call for mandatory cognitive testing for individuals who run for a political office. Such calls may be well-intentioned and may appear reasonable and accurate in revealing objective criteria to determine a person’s fitness for office, but they may have other unintended consequences, including that they may deter otherwise highly qualified individuals from serving for the common good.