The words "Senator" and "senility" have the same Latin root, senex -- and yes, it means just what you think, only more so: "old, old man."
U. S. Senators were supposed to be in those years between the attainment of mature wisdom and aimlessly wandering the halls in a bathrobe, and while you can't really mark them off on a calendar (well, kind of: nobody 29 or younger need apply), they're probably supposed to heed the wise council of their peers as they approach the upper limit, and step down gracefully.
Increasingly, this is seen not to happen. It's not an especially partisan phenomenon. Neither are those other chief occupations of a U. S. Senator: lining their own pockets (stock markets and other investments, "campaign contributions" and so on) and getting their state (or pals and benefactors in other states) larded up at the ol' pork barrel. I guess that's too engrossing to leave time for looking after their colleagues when they start to struggle. (They cannot even be arsed to revise and pass -- or not pass -- laws, either, which was supposedly the entire point of the job.)
As ever, the U. S. House runs their own Junior Varsity version of it; I remain convinced that their biggest problem is not too much dissension but a lack of tumult. If House debate were a little more spirited, it'd sort the dispirited right out, but it seems like you can't hardly get a good honest harrumph out of any of 'em on the chamber floor these days. It's all weirdness and/or weasel-wording any more.
Update
1 year ago
1 comment:
Of course, the Harrumphing & tumult is saved for the campaign ads.
It's interesting that pretty much every military retires flag officers in their mid 60's. Having a similar age ceiling for Federal Office, elected or appointed would be a good, good thing. At the very least, we would have more turnover in the ranks.
And if the Constitution has a minimum age, it's not too much of a stretch to ask for a maximum age.
Post a Comment