https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-age-candidates.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-symptoms/index.html
With the Bernie Sanders heart attack last week causing him to slow down campaigns, talks have been going around that perhaps he may be too old to be running for president. Moving forward for Sanders he has to submit himself to the vigorous challenge of preparing for debates and primaries with a lot of hard work and travel. On top of that if he were to win the nomination, the subsequent battle with President Trump will be a monumental challenge that will severely strain his fitness and health. What would happen if he were to have serious health problems prior to the election in November 2020? I believe these concerns weigh heavily on the American voter, not only in terms of running for president but also serving a four year term as president with the long work hours and stress that comes with the job.
Is this a real concern? Will this influence people when they go to vote?
What if we elected a president with serious health problems, to let them only leave office making the vice president enter office who was not elected by the people?
When we look at the top contenders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and President Trump for the presidency in 2020, all of them are over 70 with Bernie Sanders being the oldest at 78. Therefore how important are physical and mental health to the candidacy of the person running for the office of president?
The older candidates would argue that with age comes experience and contacts and a broader knowledge of events and people thus making more qualified for the office of president. In addition, modern technology has allowed seniors to live longer because of better health care. The senior members of government have more connections with other government agencies, world leaders, and are more knowledgable about the workings of our government and international relation as well.
All in all should age and health be a factor in determining the qualifications for running for president?
8 comments:
While I believe that age and health are both legitimate concerns for political leaders seeing as they may significantly affect a person's wellbeing and mentality in making decisions, I don't think that this is something that could be monitored or restricted. There are too many possibilities for someone to claim that a candidate is unfit to run for office, due to health reasons; offering restrictions due to age or health would only allow loopholes for candidates to go against each other. In addition, it would be difficult to gauge a specific age limit because as humans evolve, one's lifespan has significantly increased over time. As a result, setting an age limit now may differ in 50 years due to advances in sustaining human life.
I also believe that age and health should not be a determining factor for running for president. It might be taken too far and could lead potentially strong candidates to be shunned by the public if they have a health concern or are physically disabeled. For example, if we had this policy in effect years ago, then Teddy Roosevelt might not have been elected. This might have delayed our advancement towards the conservationist/naturalist policies he proposed to better our environment. In regards to age, Ronald Regan was 73 years old when he was elected for his second term, so it is possible to have much older candidates. If their physical and mental health is truly being affected, I would think that they themselves might resign.
If age were to be discriminated in presidential election, where could we stop the discrimination. Its like making git so a women or a different race couldn't be president. It would be taking a group of people and making it so that they don't have as much rights as people who haven't lived as much life as them. It just doesn't seem right to discriminate older people from presidential elections.
Although I don't think there should be an age limit, the presidency is better suited for more healthy individuals. Already, the stress of a presidential campaign has impacted Sanders' health. If chosen to become president, the amount of work and responsibility would only increase dramatically. After all, just look at the side-by-side pictures of Obama's hair before and after his presidency. Sanders may not have the physical stamina to become president for the next four years if he's already had a health problem on the campaign trail. Of course, that's not to say that all older candidates should drop out; if an older candidate still has the physical and mental capacity to guide the country for the next four years, then age should not be a factor in deciding the president.
To address the argument older candidates make, while wisdom does come with age, the more the better is not necessary for a president. At a certain age, any age above that minimum would be enough to make sound decisions for America.
Similar to Shirleen, I don't think there should necessarily be an age limit for the president, but consideration of a candidate's health condition is probably for the best. Yes, it could be problematic for candidates because their health condition can be used as an argument against their election as president, but wouldn't it be more problematic to have a president that is unable to do their job to the best of their ability due to a serious health issue? Not that any health issue should be viewed as a determining factor, but maybe only ones that affect a person's mental state, or in other words, ones that hinder a person's ability to make the logical and sound decisions a president would have to make (concerning topics like foreign policy or military action).
As everyone before me has said, I don’t think there should be an age limit should be implemented into candidate eligibility. While I do understand the concerns people may have about ending up with a president that they didn’t vote for if it comes to the vice president stepping up, I think that in the end it would be morally wrong to exclude older people; if we begin by preventing people from running for president because of health concerns that come with age, will we begin excluding physically disabled people from the presidential race? While voters should definitely take into account the health of candidates, it shouldn’t be the deciding factor in the presidential race. With so much at stake, we shouldn’t be making decisions based on hypotheticals. If a candidate is fit to succeed in running our country, age shouldn’t be a roadblock.
I agree with the general sentiment that age shouldn't be a restriction. However, I feel that if a candidate is old enough, like, say 80+ years old, they shouldn't be allowed to run if there is a chance that their health will impede their ability to lead the country beyond a reasonable double. Nevertheless, the public is unlikely to vote for a person whose health does not appear to be fit for running a country for 4/8 years. As such, that check is already in place de facto.
Along with many of my classmates, I also think that an age limits for the presidency would be unjust, for the government would essentially be discriminating against age. As we have begun to learn, presidential campaigns are a long and rigorous process. They require energy 24/7 and can take a toll on one's body. While the government does not have the power to restrict the run for the presidency due to age or health, I believe that societal expectations should change regarding who is fit to be a president. In my opinion, Sander's age and recent health scares are determinants against my vote, for the President should be viewed as a strong powerful leader and the press coverage of Sander's heart attack has relinquished his ability to emanate such an image.
Post a Comment