A question of age
- 7 Jan 08, 12:29 PM
So which British political party would select a leader who was 71? OK, hasn't won the Republican nomination yet, but for him even to be leading contender for the US presidency is in stark contrast to Britain, where our party leaders seem to get younger and younger. McCain will be 72 by the time of this November's presidential poll.
British politics is obsessed with youth these days, almost as obsessed as broadcasting. Perhaps it's understandable that I should be worried about this as we begin the year in which I turn 50, but we do seem to take this youth thing a little bit too far in British politics. Almost every leadership election in Britain these days is won by the youngest contender. John Major and then Tony Blair both broke records for being the youngest Prime Ministers of modern times.
Major and then William Hague, Neil Kinnock and then Tony Blair, all broke modern records as their parties' youngest leaders. Our two opposition parties are led by , who is 41 today (7 January), and David Cameron, who is only three months older. The only exception to all this is Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, led by the 81-year old , Westminster's oldest MP.
Some argue the emphasis on youth is inevitable in the television age. So how come John McCain is doing so well, in an election contest where TV plays an even bigger role than in does in British politics? And it wasn't that long ago that the Americans twice elected Ronald Reagan, who didn't leave the White House until he was 77.
I suppose part of the answer is that Americans respect and revere age in their politicians (and TV presenters), which partly explains why so many US senators have survived in office well into their 80s and 90s. Yet Europeans have also elected elderly leaders in recent years. In British politics, in contrast, age is mocked and derided. Hence, in part, the demise of . Though Sir Ming had the added disadvantage of looking about ten years older than he actually is (and also suffered, I felt, from having a title and old-fashioned sounding name, making him sound like a character from a Trollope novel).
Indeed, you could argue that elderly politicians should be in more demand than ever in this country, given first our aging population, and second the fact that older people are much more inclined to vote.
Political Oldies
Anyway, I've come up with a list of oldies who've shown you can still do it in politics beyond the age of 65, and in some cases well beyond 80:
Konrad Adenauer (b.5 Jan 1876) formed his last administration in West Germany at the age of 85 in 1961 and was 87 when he left office in 1963;
William Gladstone (b.29 Dec 1809) was 84 when he left Downing Street in 1894;
Winston Churchill (b.30 Nov 1874) was 80 when he left office in 1955;
(b.21 Aug 1923), President of Israel, is now 84, and was deputy PM until he
was 83;
(b.18 July 1918) was 80 when he retired in 1999 having been elected President of South Africa in 1994 at the age of 75;
Ronald Reagan (b.6 Feb 1911) came to office at 69 in 1981, and left office at 77 in 1989;
(b.26 Oct 1916) was 78 when he left the French presidency in 1995;
Charles de Gaulle (22 Nov 1890) left office in 1969 at 78;
(b.27 Feb 1928) was 78 when he stopped being Israeli PM in 2006;
(b.16 Oct 1886) was 76 when he left office as Israeli PM in 1963;
(b.29 Nov 1932) was 74 when he left the French presidency in 2007;
(b.29 Aug 1936) is now 71, and will be 72 if elected US President in 2008;
(b.14 Jan 1919) was 72 when he left office as Italian PM in 1991;
Helmut Kohl (b.3 April 1930) was 68 was he left office as German Chancellor in 1998.
Comments Post your comment
I'm not sure it's about age. Rather it could just be that our older, more aged politicians, at least those who are famiiar, are so dull, and dare I say unattractive.
Poor old Campbell may has well have been from the Ming dynasty. As a party leader he rather resembled Alec Douglas Hume.
On the other hand Ken Clark, with his enoremous hutzpah, at least gives the impression not only of enjoying life, but also of having tremendous energy in spite of his bus pass.
That was Ronald Reagan's secret. Like him or hate him, he seemed to be thouroughly alive, drawling not drooling, and therefore in spite of all the jibes about his laziness it was possible to think, and much regret, that he was in charge.
If there were older politicians with charm who appeared actually to be even slightly in touch with voters lives, they might surprise us all by being electable.
If you are as dull as Brown, Clegg, and Cameron, you will always be in danger of being surpassed by something younger and prettier (and that wouldn't be hard).
Anyone who cared less about how they were reported, and more about what they thought, and had genuine charm, would have huge appeal.
Complain about this post
A very interesting post, and there is much to be said for having leaders who are older. We're an odd society in the way in which we want to entrust our government to those who have barely had time to experience anything. But then, we have schools these days who entrust inspections to their pupils (see the TES this week) so the whole damn world is up-ending! At nearly 50, Mr. Crick is clearly past it - how can you possibly make your reporting 'yoof' friendly? And how can you identify with the kids who are leading our parties - they could just write you off as an old fogey!
More seriously, I tend to agree with the first commenter, that it is the appearance of having a zest for life and a personal dynamism that hopefully counts for more than mere age. Ken Clarke memorably dismissed the young turks of the new leadership once when he told thekids to get their bicycles off his lawn! Oh, and you listed venerable oldies - what about the unfortunate youngsters who became leaders, such as, say, that chap Hitler, a mere 44 on assuming the chancellorship of Germany!
Complain about this post
A very interesting post, and there is much to be said for having leaders who are older. We're an odd society in the way in which we want to entrust our government to those who have barely had time to experience anything. But then, we have schools these days who entrust inspections to their pupils (see the TES this week) so the whole damn world is up-ending! At nearly 50, Mr. Crick is clearly past it - how can you possibly make your reporting 'yoof' friendly? And how can you identify with the kids who are leading our parties - they could just write you off as an old fogey!
More seriously, I tend to agree with the first commenter, that it is the appearance of having a zest for life and a personal dynamism that hopefully counts for more than mere age. Ken Clarke memorably dismissed the young turks of the new leadership once when he told thekids to get their bicycles off his lawn! Oh, and you listed venerable oldies - what about the unfortunate youngsters who became leaders, such as, say, that chap Hitler, a mere 44 on assuming the chancellorship of Germany!
Complain about this post
After so many years of compulsory education and its various 'reforms' are we supposed to confuse politicians trying to run a country with contestants in a cheap celebrity contest? So long as we demand excitement at all times we will be dissatisfied with anyone foolish enough to take politics seriously. There is a case for having politicians of all ages, classes and races who belong to this country and there is something grotesque about the ability of people to live longer and longer while showing contempt for those over 40.
Complain about this post
Of course it is vital that all members of our society can participate in our democracy - older members should be welcomed to contribute and able to lead parties/the country.
However, respect for what older members can bring should also be extended to what younger members can bring. In a society where young people are disillusioned and disconnected from our political parties and systems, it is not hard to see why when there is so little representation of their generation. Comments have been made about how young the leaders - as someone in my mid 20s, 41 is not young!
Our politicians should be elected on the basis of their competencies and skills, and the ideas they bring to the post. Age is not a guarantee of experience, and youth is not a guarantee of energy.
Complain about this post
Of course it is vital that all members of our society can participate in our democracy - older members should be welcomed to contribute and able to lead parties/the country.
However, respect for what older members can bring should also be extended to what younger members can bring. In a society where young people are disillusioned and disconnected from our political parties and systems, it is not hard to see why when there is so little representation of their generation. Comments have been made about how young the leaders - as someone in my mid 20s, 41 is not young!
Our politicians should be elected on the basis of their competencies and skills, and the ideas they bring to the post. Age is not a guarantee of experience, and youth is not a guarantee of energy.
Complain about this post
There's also Eamon de Valera in Ireland, who was the dominant figure in Irish politics for over forty years, until he finally retired as Taoiseach in 1959 aged 76. Even then, he served two terms as President and was the oldest living head of state in the world, aged 90, when he retired in 1973.
Complain about this post
The only good thing that I wish to say about the Presidency of Ronald Reagan is that his most fervent supporters seemed to be the youngest voters. I believe this was confirmed by several opinion polls.
On a general point, the obsession we appear to have with age is appalling. I am NOT against youth but I am most certainly against 'youthism'. It's demise cannot come soon enough.
Complain about this post
Nevertheless, this is 2007 and the needs of the US and the world are different. If one consider the senility of Ronald Reagan and his administration's fiasco in Afghanistan, Iran Contra, the recession, the National and federal debt , his voodoo economic his success was nothing but a failure. He was popular for the Republicans after the crook Nixon, but that was all. He and his administration created the menace Bin Laden, and Saddam. During his second term he was pure simple senile and the facts were hidden from the public. What the world needs is 65 retiring age in particular for politicians and all these appointed judges.
Complain about this post
Nevertheless, this is 2007 and the needs of the US and the world are different. If one consider the senility of Ronald Reagan and his administration's fiasco in Afghanistan, Iran Contra, the recession, the National and federal debt , his voodoo economic his success was nothing but a failure. He was popular for the Republicans after the crook Nixon, but that was all. He and his administration created the menace Bin Laden, and Saddam. During his second term he was pure simple senile and the facts were hidden from the public. What the world needs is 65 retiring age in particular for politicians and all these appointed judges. McCain is nothing but a has been Conservative Republican first and American second. If the majority of republicans were Islamic Radical, for the means to the end, he would be the first one to claim that be Islamic.
Complain about this post
Whilst Giles Marshall raises a good point about entrusting our country to people not old enough to have experience, experience is not always needed. At the age of thirty Julius Caesar stood before a statue of Alexander the Great and wept at the frustration that by the time Alexander was his age, he had conquered the known world! Whilst, it's true that leaders of such youthful competence are few and far between, one would be wrong to deny they exist.
Complain about this post
John McCain continues to be revalent and an icon of American politics because of his history, he is a genuine American hero AND his intellecutal honesty in dealing with issues in a bipartisan manner. He is percieved as a straight shooter with low tolerence for b.s. His goal is to get things done, and he does. He is also fearless in calling political shucksters on their shenanigans. He may be old, but he is vigorous and full of life. I am proud of his success yesterday and what he represents for America.
Complain about this post
Michael Crick appears to be forgetting the ability for the old to see young people (particularly elderly women with young men) to go 'oooh, isnt he nice well presented young man, and nice right/left wing principles. He's the man for me....' At least one of my grandmothers has done this over Cameron.
In Camerons case the old Tories are still associated with Major, thus the desire for someone like Hague to try and break from that in the late nineties, and Ming the Merciful probably got the boot becuase he was poor in parliament (plus if he did have anything to do with Charlie boy's toppling it may have been Karma).
Complain about this post
What is missing from Michael's post is any comment on the state that these older politicans were in when they left office and the effect on their countries.
Ronald Reagan was suffering from dimentia and you have to wonder who was filling the vacuum of power when it was at its worst.
Churchill was a shadow of his former self and UK didn't progress greatly under his second period in charge (except for building very ugly high-rise concrete properties that have caused a lot of the social problems we see today).
Mitterand was clinging to life and trying not to die in office rather than leading France.
Sharon was potent (regardless of feelings about his policies) up to the time of his stroke. But as an old, over-weight man that stroke was waiting to happen and no clear succession plan was put in place. Arguably this has made the situation worse in Israel ever-since.
Age shouldn't be a barrier to politics - but good health is essential for running a country.
Complain about this post