shyams, on 2023-August-16, 12:35, said:
How about 38? (or to be more precise, 39 by the time next year's elections come around)
The issues at the young end of the age spectrum are completely different from the problems at the old end. The Constitution says 35 for the presidency and that sounds very reasonable to me. Some 30-year-olds might be ready, but if they wait until they are 35 they will probably have learned a few more useful things. At the old end the problem, as I see it, is not that we lapse into unrealistic memories. That can be a problem but it is usually pretty obvious and such a person could be rejected. The problem is that the presidency is an extremely demanding job. Most people who serve two terms come out looking like they are a good deal more than eight years older than they were when they started. Sure, there are variations. Some 80 year olds that I know are dead, some are feeling fine. But none of us are what we were 25 years ago. I am not at all suggesting that we replace the rule "must be 35" by "must be 35 and must not be over 75". That's too extreme. Biden is functional. But he is also noticeably past his prime so I look at him and say "Can't we find a decent guy who is at least somewhat younger?"
When this or that physical issue arises with me I do not take kindly to the view "You are 84, that's the explanation". I want details beyond that. But 20 years ago I was not having issues arise nearly, not remotely, as often. It is simply a fact that I am too old to take on a highly demanding job with great responsibilities. That's not ageism, it is realism.
So yeah, 37 or 38 is fine, depending of course on which youngster we are talking about.