>>12476I saw the video of this, and it looked kind-of like a scene out of a movie, where the person is asked if they would run for re-election, and their reaction could only be explained by knowing their backstory.
To be fair, however, it is still way too early to be asked a question about the 2026 election as it is nowhere near that date. Elections should really only be thought about by the general population a month before and for politicans maybe three months before.
There wasn't enough context from the first freezing video that I could find to tell very much about it.
Some Thoughts:
In addition, stuff like this probably occurred in the past as well, only because there was less video back then it wasn't caught as much. Lastly, the ancient Stoic philosopher Seneca writes about the same subject - namely, that it is shameful for politicians to die in in their old age while at work.
But should their be laws limiting age? I think if there were such a law, it would probably have to be based strictly on age rather than cognitive function, otherwise it would probably never get enough support and then there would be the question of who decides on what the cognitive standards are. The result would be that some people who are not fit for office in old age would have to quit, perhaps having some benefit, while others who are clearly still fit would have to quit early. The number would also have to be based on life-expectency. For example, some people have the genes to live into their 100s. Also, as spiritual maturity tends to come with age, a hard age limit may make things worse in the long-term, especially as people continue to live longer and remain healthy. This also raises questions about the actual role of leaders...
The argument against this is that if a person gets too old the people can just vote them out of office. The people around the person and doctors are also there who can help make assessments as well (and influence the person to step down if there actually is a problem), so there is already that safeguard in place. Age limits also imply that people who get too old may have less rights than other adults. But again, we do the same thing with kids who may be more mature than others for their age, yet are still treated like kids.
I think age limits for politicians are more of a band-aid solution to the bigger problem of inadequate representation.
Edit: I just read your question more closely...
>Should elderly U.S. politicians who've publicly suffered mental and physical impairments...Who decides what counts as having suffered a mental or physical impairment? Certainly, the standard would have to be a lot higher than just not looking 100% perfect in your role all the time...
