Daniel Pink responds to a reader's proposal for a maximum age limit on presidents. He argues voters, not age thresholds, should judge fitness for office, and suggests that if 18-year-olds can be drafted to war, they should be eligible for any elected position including the presidency.
Hey, this is Daniel Pink. I write the Why Not column for The Washington Post, where we propose big ideas for remaking our country, our organizations, and our lives. We've gotten thousands of ideas from readers all over America. Here's one from somebody in Holly, Michigan, who says, why not have a maximum age for the president of the United States in addition to the minimum age? Okay, I see where this is coming from. Very legitimate questions about someone's capacity to serve based on their physical and cognitive health. Except I don't really love this idea that let the voters decide whether someone is capable of serving. In fact, I don't like minimum ages either, even though they're in the Constitution right now. 25 for the US House, 30 for the US Senate, 35 for president. My view, if you can be sent to war at age 18, at that same age, you should be able to decide whether other young men and women are also going to be sent to war. So I don't— I'm fine with 18-year-olds serving in the House, the Senate, as president. Let the voters decide. Tell us what you think in the comments below.
