Gerontocracy discourse often conflates age as a prerequisite for accumulating knowledge and age as a prerequisite for accumulating capital. The former is good. The latter is bad.
In the US, the latter works against the former. People with genuine cognitive health issues are kept in positions of authority because they have spent a lifetime accumulating capital either for themselves or on behalf of the capitalist class.
I imagine this question is motivated by the current American public discourse about our current batch of geriatric presidents & presidential candidates. I think that discourse is largely a waste of time, and of course ageist.
True to form, NATOPedia’s article on the topic spends rather a lot of time on the gerontocratic authoritarian states of the USSR & China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerontocracy
I was thinking of the USA, yes
There are usually going to be a relatively high proportion relatively old people in high political positions in virtually any political system, because to develop a political track record and accumulate political capital takes time, and old people have had more time than young people. Sometimes the moment of revolution is lead by “young Turks,” the American revolution is an example of such, but AFAIK that has never continued as a political system matured.
People above a certain age shouldnt hold positions of power or authority and i will die on this hill (>70yo), they should only hold counseling/advice positions.
I think you should die in a retirement home, because you won’t be working at that age.
Edit: Looking back on this, it sounds way more threatening than I intended, sorry for any confusion I might’ve caused.
