this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
733 points (99.1% liked)
Progressive Politics
3195 readers
809 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So I know I'm having an existential crisis over the fact that people my age are leading parties in my country, but I personally think 30 something is an age you should be able to run for political office?
I mean, I personally don't think that the modern political landscape should be like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
The US founding fathers decided that the president has to be at least 35, which to me implies that those individuals have had some political experience before becoming president. IMO roughly half the Senate should be under 35, and a good chunk of the House of Representatives should be under 29 considering Senate terms are 6-years long.
Not that you should have to be a "career politician" before becoming president, but it's fairly common to want to show some experience at leadership/politics.
I'm not really a fan, but look at "Mayor" Pete Buttigeg. One of the biggest attacks against him when he ran was "being president is not the same as being a mayor" (meanwhile we'll elect CEOs like their experience means anything, but that's a whole other problem).
I believe the age limit was, at least in part, an attempt to immitate the Cursus Honorum of Rome - where to become Consul you were supposed to go through a series of lower posts and therefore couldn't really get that high up before a certain age. But even then, it was very prestigious for a Roman to be Consul "in his year" (ie. as early as theoretically possible), rather than it being a lifetime achievement award.
I am intrigued as to their system of electing two of everything. I think that could help alleviate a lot of our problems. Two attorney generals, to secretaries of Agriculture or state, Etc.
More than anything though I think we should reestablish the Tribunate, vested with the power to veto government actions and offer sanctuary and all that.
Somehow I get the feeling it would end the same way the actual tribunate ended.
Well, the Tribunate helped curtail be Patricians excesses for 400 plus years. Quite a bit longer than we have as a country.
I think they got their first ones around 500 BC when the plebs did a general strike encamping to a hill.
Then they had another general strike what was it 300 BC ish where they got more tribunes and got some other reforms.
Point.
Y'all also elect representatives and senators as presidents, but that's the legislative branch so that actually has less in common with presidency than mayors or CEOs, both of which are more executive branch roles
Honestly, maybe having served as a congressman, senator, mayor or other form of public office, for at least 4 years; would be a rather sensible requirement for becoming president.
I think having a pipeline of official service would be good. Here is a concept for that:
After your first term is completed, you can elect to either run for a second term, or to be promoted to the higher level. If you get promoted, you can't have a second term on a lower level, so your career gets shorter if you move up the ladder quickly. However, if you fail to be elected to the higher post, you are barred from taking a 2nd term of your prior offices. This is a "are you sure people like you?" mechanism that theoretically would cull bad politicians from holding onto political power forever.
Mayor -> State legislature -> national congress -> president, something like that. Assuming one term for each posting, that would be 12 years of service before getting a chance at being president. 24 years of political presence if you took two full terms for each post. A politician can opt to have a glorious but short career, or to take a longer and more surer route that yields better odds of getting into the highest office.
End result: Actually good politician loses to a demagogue on the higher election, loses prior post
Theory is nice and all, but reality is that humans suck.
I mean surely if the lower limit to becoming president is 35, then surely the campaign team to become Mayor (not president) of a city can have an average age of 30?
Also, I don't give a shit what the Founding Fathers said, not just because I'm not American, but because I don't think that because a group of revered men said something means it's right. That's something I'd expect from religion rather than politics, which is apt because there are two (maybe three if you count Rushmore) Congress funded pieces of art that depict George Washington as a God.
OR, we could flip it and forbid CEOs that have a financial self interest from becoming president. Didn't they used to have to put things in a trust? Guess we threw that rule out.
I think the founding fathers are often brought up because they forged the document we used to think was important for these situations and there actually used to be some (not all) good stuff in there. But I hear you that times have changed.
It was just decorum putting assets in trusts for prez, modern era laws did restrict other officials to some degree.
In 2016 the Republicans just refused to honor those laws and nobody held them to account, now they are not really bothering to pretend. Open corruption.
The Constitution does forbid emoluments, but that is ignored by our captured (in)justice department.
I'm not even fully sure it was good at the time? Like I agree, it was a document of the time, but even of the time it isn't a very good document.
You make good points but I think you're missing some of the good things or at least an attempt at good things like having three branches of government to use as checks and balances. Yeah, it's not working now but I think it was a worthy attempt.
I also think the amendments were pretty good. Freedom of speech, unlawful searches and seizures, no quartering of soldiers, voting Rights, etc. I mean it was a different time. Did any country give poor people the same rights as the wealthy? I know freedom of religion wasn't universal.
A lot of these rules have been circumvented, but I'm not certain they could have foreseen this and that is the nature of the complaint, isn't it?
Experience in politics is a detraction nowadays. They are all sold out to greater and lesser degrees with a few exceptions like my man bernie but even he backs off some issues.
Jon Stewart 2028!
It's also worth noting that, when the Constitution became a thing, vaccines had yet to make their big change on stage. So, the typical life expectancy was to about 35-ish at the time.
People often have misconceptions about life expectancy in the past. The reason why it was so low was because of childhood/infant mortality. If you made it past early childhood your chances of living decently long were fine. This is not to say that there weren't tons of hazards. Diseases and medical conditions that are easily avoidable today weren't back then.
And given what RFK Jr. Is doing now, we will be seeing a resurgence of that in the US today.