I think the more salient factor is not the age of the Congress Critters but the length of time in office. I am thinking the older the age skews the more likely they have been in office for a long time. Most of the oldsters in Congress were elected when they were much younger.
The implication then is that rotation in and out of office is suboptimal and reflects potential for a sort of political sclerosis.
I am not especially in favor of artificial term limits but it would probably lower the average age of incumbents by generating younger replacements.
"The factors attributed to increased tenure are expansion of incentives associated with the perqs, power and prestige of holding congressional office that lead to more incumbents seeking reelection and institutional changes such as increased incumbent advantage, gerrymandering, and political party influence that decrease chances of defeat at the ballot box to less than 5%."
Also has there ever been a study documenting the accumulation of wealth during terms of service?
Data without context can be misleading or even meaningless. Regarding the Walter Hickey tweet with his chart showing "Percentage of Congress over the age of 70," we all know that Americans' longevity has increased significantly in the last 200 years, so adding another curve that shows American's life span during that period would add some context, but then it would blunt the shock value of the chart, which may have actually been its original intended purpose. FWIW, as a 72-yr-old, I agree that there are not enough young folks & way too many geriatrics in politics, but pushing out this sort of partial information is borderline disingenuous.
I'm still disappointed that most of the Bullwark contibutors continue to consider themselves Reagan Republicans, as if Reagan's legacy were somehow disjointed from the trajectory that resulted in Trump. I see that Charlie still has quibbles about this. And acknowledging the racism, gay bashing (which let's not forget was not just a temporary campaign stance, Reagan's inaction on AIDS literally resulted in the deaths of THOUSANDS of gay men) of the "moral majority" campaign stance is not remotely enough.
As I've outlined in prior comments, Reagan is spawned Trumpism:
1) Unqualified performer turned President? Check
2) Complete lack of fiscal responsibility that is supposed to be the hallmark of Conservatism? Check (Reagan caused the deficit to explode, in part by promoting ridiculous ideas like "trickle down economics" which have NEVER been taken seriously by even conservative economists.
3) Brazen lawlessness? Check (umm Iran contra affair anyone?).
4) Stoking racism DURING his Presidency? Check (e.g. his "welfare queen" nonsense.
Sigh, I'm frankly getting tired of repeating myself re: Reagan but Charlie remains a drinker and purveyor of the Reaganite Kool-Aid.
I'd be nice if he'd at least acknowledge the very clear arguments for why Reagan is a clear line to Trump.
A more useful statistic would be to see the years each senator had held a seat. The longer there, the more they think they have to lose: All those perks at home & In DC; paid speaking engagements, elbow rubbing with the powerful, rich & famous and always being shown to the head of the line.
Reverse the order of the Quick Hits to see why public opinion is of no concern to the maga party. These authoritarians intend to take power undemocratically, hold it by any means necessarily, and govern solely for the benefit of the maga-fascist ultra-far-right.
That story of GHW Bush is not the condemnation Corn wants readers to see. Bush's appearance before the Christian Coalition, despite some of their leaders having previsouly insulted him, says more about Bush's thick skin than it says appeasement. I'm old enough to recall Bush stiff armed JBS's influence in Harris County GOP, at the expense of his his first campaign for Senate in '64, and years later, as POTUS #41, Bush dispatched his political operation to oppose David Duke's campaign for Governor.
Eisenhower's failure to condemn McCarthy is a great example of one of the more underemphasized flaws of our Electoral College system. Had McCarthy come from a more reliably Republican state, Ike wouldn't have needed to worry about backlash from McCarthy's constituents.
But Wisconsin at the time was a swing state, recently having swung from *mostly* reliably Republican to backing FDR thrice, before picking Dewey in Roosevelt's fourth term, only to then abandon Dewey for Truman in '48 and then strongly swing to Eisenhower in '52. Eisenhower would again win the state comfortably in '56, perhaps financed in part by his silence on Joey Mac.
Fast forward to recent years, where Donald Trump is observed struggling to lift a glass of water, presumably with the arm he must have injured patting himself on the back after hurricane relief efforts in Texas and Florida, and perhaps re-aggravated while dismissively tossing a few rolls of toilet paper to a crowd of Puerto Rican ingrates. It would later be revealed that he actually ordered the stoppage of wildfire relief payments to California and that his crack team of COVID advisors, led by Slumlord Jared, decided early on that Trump needn't be too concerned, what with the virus mostly ravaging tightly packed metropolises in blue states.
Another bullet point in the "lessons learned" report following Trump's red-teaming of our Constitution.
Great podcast with David Corn. To your question after all the prepping the battlefield by Gingrich and especially Limbaugh (who I think is the #1 super-spreader) - David Corn is spot on re Rush. But what burst the dam IMO is the two terms of Barak Obama. That was the straw that broke the camel's back in in the psychology part. He so offended so many they lost it. Why he so triggered this I cannot say.
It's odd to me that commentators see the Graham move as an own-goal. First of all, if you truly believe that abortion at 16 weeks is murder, then of course it is rational to outlaw it across the United states. Accepting a patchwork of state laws isn't consistent with the idea that banning abortion is a universal moral constant.
Second, the approach specifically takes away rights from blue states. In other words it seeks to harm people in blue states. Especially *women* in blue states. Given the violent and oddly psychosexual hatred the right wing has for liberals in places like California, this should be a very effective approach to energize Republican voters across the country.
Senator Graham is on to something with this and should consider other platform policies that would actively dismay blue state liberals. Nationalizing culture war ideas could be similarly effective. The idea is to get Republicans pumped about "forcing it down the libs throats." Republicans have almost infinite latitude with the Supreme Court, and Biden will be neutralized entirely (and possibly impeached) when both houses flip--and they absolutely will--in November.
I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but in looking at pictures of Lindsey, he needs to go somewhere and dry out. He looks like a member of DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers.
My take from Graham's proposal is that McConnell has lost control of his caucus in a painfully obvious way:
1) Trump candidates are winning primaries and then severely disadvantaged in the general election. Oz in Pennsylvania is the most obvious example but there are plenty of others. Herschel Walker, Blake Masters, Don Bolduc, all perhaps punting easily winnable Senate races.
2) Rick Scott's crazy plan to raise taxes on Social Security recipients somehow made it out into the popular discourse with McConnell killing or neutering. Now Scott is apparently using the NRSC to pay his yacht expenses.
3) Now Lindsey Graham wants to enact a national abortion ban after a similar concept got smacked down in Kansas of all places.
I repeat my previous theory that Mitch McConnell doesn't want to be Senate Majority Leader again. He's 81 and he'll retire by 2026. His deputy John Thune will then have the Paul Ryan-esque job of cleaning up the caucus.
Over thirty years ago William Greider remarked that the Republican Party was not the party of conservative principles--it was the party of conservative *constituencies.* "Conservatism," in other words, was whatever people who called themselves conservatives wanted. And a lot of them--e.g. the ones I grew up with in SC--wanted their tribe on top. And, I'd add, the NR crowd considered those people allies, just as do the Mises libertarians. It's a long-standing faustian bargain.
Outside the US, it is quite easy to find those to the left of Conservatives who also support monarchy as embodied by the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Nations. In the British context, at least, the monarchy can be a symbol of support and unity, of holding up decency and civilized behaviour which contrasts with the anger and thugishness that has crept into American politics.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Lindsey Graham of all people is spun up about abortion. He's not even married, never has been, doesn't have any kids, isn't a woman. In other words, he doesn't have a dog in this fight.
Considering his position just a month ago(!), his stunt yesterday makes even less sense. The whole point of the Alito ruling in Dobbs was the notion of returning the issue to the states. But apparently, republicans don't believe in states' rights when some states might not toe the anti-abortion line. There was a time when republicans used to campaign on getting government out of our lives. Now, people like Graham and others want the government in our bedrooms, our doctors' offices and in every private aspect of our lives.
As to David Corn's article, many of us on the left-of-center side of the house have been pointing this out for years. Trump and Trumpism are the culmination of years and years of republican alignments-of-convenience with the worst elements in our country. Trump and Trumpism didn't start in 2015 when he rode his golden escalator into our national nightmare. The ground had been paved for him for years, and accelerated after McCain unleashed Sarah Palin on an unsuspecting nation. The tea party movement, which never made any sense from a tax perspective, quickly morphed into the 'freedom caucus' then melded into MAGAs.
I think the more salient factor is not the age of the Congress Critters but the length of time in office. I am thinking the older the age skews the more likely they have been in office for a long time. Most of the oldsters in Congress were elected when they were much younger.
The implication then is that rotation in and out of office is suboptimal and reflects potential for a sort of political sclerosis.
I am not especially in favor of artificial term limits but it would probably lower the average age of incumbents by generating younger replacements.
"The factors attributed to increased tenure are expansion of incentives associated with the perqs, power and prestige of holding congressional office that lead to more incumbents seeking reelection and institutional changes such as increased incumbent advantage, gerrymandering, and political party influence that decrease chances of defeat at the ballot box to less than 5%."
Also has there ever been a study documenting the accumulation of wealth during terms of service?
https://www.termlimits.com/new-research-congressional-tenure-steadily-increasing/
I am not a fan of MoveOn but the graphic here is interesting.
https://front.moveon.org/how-many-millionaires-directly-create-our-laws/
Data without context can be misleading or even meaningless. Regarding the Walter Hickey tweet with his chart showing "Percentage of Congress over the age of 70," we all know that Americans' longevity has increased significantly in the last 200 years, so adding another curve that shows American's life span during that period would add some context, but then it would blunt the shock value of the chart, which may have actually been its original intended purpose. FWIW, as a 72-yr-old, I agree that there are not enough young folks & way too many geriatrics in politics, but pushing out this sort of partial information is borderline disingenuous.
Re: Reagan's Legacy
I'm still disappointed that most of the Bullwark contibutors continue to consider themselves Reagan Republicans, as if Reagan's legacy were somehow disjointed from the trajectory that resulted in Trump. I see that Charlie still has quibbles about this. And acknowledging the racism, gay bashing (which let's not forget was not just a temporary campaign stance, Reagan's inaction on AIDS literally resulted in the deaths of THOUSANDS of gay men) of the "moral majority" campaign stance is not remotely enough.
As I've outlined in prior comments, Reagan is spawned Trumpism:
1) Unqualified performer turned President? Check
2) Complete lack of fiscal responsibility that is supposed to be the hallmark of Conservatism? Check (Reagan caused the deficit to explode, in part by promoting ridiculous ideas like "trickle down economics" which have NEVER been taken seriously by even conservative economists.
3) Brazen lawlessness? Check (umm Iran contra affair anyone?).
4) Stoking racism DURING his Presidency? Check (e.g. his "welfare queen" nonsense.
Sigh, I'm frankly getting tired of repeating myself re: Reagan but Charlie remains a drinker and purveyor of the Reaganite Kool-Aid.
I'd be nice if he'd at least acknowledge the very clear arguments for why Reagan is a clear line to Trump.
A more useful statistic would be to see the years each senator had held a seat. The longer there, the more they think they have to lose: All those perks at home & In DC; paid speaking engagements, elbow rubbing with the powerful, rich & famous and always being shown to the head of the line.
Reverse the order of the Quick Hits to see why public opinion is of no concern to the maga party. These authoritarians intend to take power undemocratically, hold it by any means necessarily, and govern solely for the benefit of the maga-fascist ultra-far-right.
When half of your constituency is morally & mentally defective, I guess you have to compromise your principles for powers sake.
That story of GHW Bush is not the condemnation Corn wants readers to see. Bush's appearance before the Christian Coalition, despite some of their leaders having previsouly insulted him, says more about Bush's thick skin than it says appeasement. I'm old enough to recall Bush stiff armed JBS's influence in Harris County GOP, at the expense of his his first campaign for Senate in '64, and years later, as POTUS #41, Bush dispatched his political operation to oppose David Duke's campaign for Governor.
Eisenhower's failure to condemn McCarthy is a great example of one of the more underemphasized flaws of our Electoral College system. Had McCarthy come from a more reliably Republican state, Ike wouldn't have needed to worry about backlash from McCarthy's constituents.
But Wisconsin at the time was a swing state, recently having swung from *mostly* reliably Republican to backing FDR thrice, before picking Dewey in Roosevelt's fourth term, only to then abandon Dewey for Truman in '48 and then strongly swing to Eisenhower in '52. Eisenhower would again win the state comfortably in '56, perhaps financed in part by his silence on Joey Mac.
Fast forward to recent years, where Donald Trump is observed struggling to lift a glass of water, presumably with the arm he must have injured patting himself on the back after hurricane relief efforts in Texas and Florida, and perhaps re-aggravated while dismissively tossing a few rolls of toilet paper to a crowd of Puerto Rican ingrates. It would later be revealed that he actually ordered the stoppage of wildfire relief payments to California and that his crack team of COVID advisors, led by Slumlord Jared, decided early on that Trump needn't be too concerned, what with the virus mostly ravaging tightly packed metropolises in blue states.
Another bullet point in the "lessons learned" report following Trump's red-teaming of our Constitution.
Great podcast with David Corn. To your question after all the prepping the battlefield by Gingrich and especially Limbaugh (who I think is the #1 super-spreader) - David Corn is spot on re Rush. But what burst the dam IMO is the two terms of Barak Obama. That was the straw that broke the camel's back in in the psychology part. He so offended so many they lost it. Why he so triggered this I cannot say.
It's odd to me that commentators see the Graham move as an own-goal. First of all, if you truly believe that abortion at 16 weeks is murder, then of course it is rational to outlaw it across the United states. Accepting a patchwork of state laws isn't consistent with the idea that banning abortion is a universal moral constant.
Second, the approach specifically takes away rights from blue states. In other words it seeks to harm people in blue states. Especially *women* in blue states. Given the violent and oddly psychosexual hatred the right wing has for liberals in places like California, this should be a very effective approach to energize Republican voters across the country.
Senator Graham is on to something with this and should consider other platform policies that would actively dismay blue state liberals. Nationalizing culture war ideas could be similarly effective. The idea is to get Republicans pumped about "forcing it down the libs throats." Republicans have almost infinite latitude with the Supreme Court, and Biden will be neutralized entirely (and possibly impeached) when both houses flip--and they absolutely will--in November.
I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but in looking at pictures of Lindsey, he needs to go somewhere and dry out. He looks like a member of DAMM - Drunks Against Mad Mothers.
My take from Graham's proposal is that McConnell has lost control of his caucus in a painfully obvious way:
1) Trump candidates are winning primaries and then severely disadvantaged in the general election. Oz in Pennsylvania is the most obvious example but there are plenty of others. Herschel Walker, Blake Masters, Don Bolduc, all perhaps punting easily winnable Senate races.
2) Rick Scott's crazy plan to raise taxes on Social Security recipients somehow made it out into the popular discourse with McConnell killing or neutering. Now Scott is apparently using the NRSC to pay his yacht expenses.
3) Now Lindsey Graham wants to enact a national abortion ban after a similar concept got smacked down in Kansas of all places.
I repeat my previous theory that Mitch McConnell doesn't want to be Senate Majority Leader again. He's 81 and he'll retire by 2026. His deputy John Thune will then have the Paul Ryan-esque job of cleaning up the caucus.
Over thirty years ago William Greider remarked that the Republican Party was not the party of conservative principles--it was the party of conservative *constituencies.* "Conservatism," in other words, was whatever people who called themselves conservatives wanted. And a lot of them--e.g. the ones I grew up with in SC--wanted their tribe on top. And, I'd add, the NR crowd considered those people allies, just as do the Mises libertarians. It's a long-standing faustian bargain.
Outside the US, it is quite easy to find those to the left of Conservatives who also support monarchy as embodied by the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Nations. In the British context, at least, the monarchy can be a symbol of support and unity, of holding up decency and civilized behaviour which contrasts with the anger and thugishness that has crept into American politics.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Lindsey Graham of all people is spun up about abortion. He's not even married, never has been, doesn't have any kids, isn't a woman. In other words, he doesn't have a dog in this fight.
Considering his position just a month ago(!), his stunt yesterday makes even less sense. The whole point of the Alito ruling in Dobbs was the notion of returning the issue to the states. But apparently, republicans don't believe in states' rights when some states might not toe the anti-abortion line. There was a time when republicans used to campaign on getting government out of our lives. Now, people like Graham and others want the government in our bedrooms, our doctors' offices and in every private aspect of our lives.
As to David Corn's article, many of us on the left-of-center side of the house have been pointing this out for years. Trump and Trumpism are the culmination of years and years of republican alignments-of-convenience with the worst elements in our country. Trump and Trumpism didn't start in 2015 when he rode his golden escalator into our national nightmare. The ground had been paved for him for years, and accelerated after McCain unleashed Sarah Palin on an unsuspecting nation. The tea party movement, which never made any sense from a tax perspective, quickly morphed into the 'freedom caucus' then melded into MAGAs.
RE: The graph of Congresspeople over 70.
There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.
Overlay a plot of life expectancy. I've got $20 that says it follows similar trends.
Seriously, what was the life expectancy in 1935?...it was 58. Not a whole lot of septuagenarians around.