Retire Already... Nobody Is Irreplaceable— Especially In Government Service

Too Old to Drive, But Still Running For Congress— Power Is a Hell Of A Drug!

Nobody walks in L.A. But my 2009 Prius is sitting in my garage with a dead battery and 3 tires that aren’t safe enough to drive on. There are so many books in the car that it’s more like a library than an automobile. And my driver's license is expired. I’m 77 and I keep thinking that’s old enough to voluntarily stop driving. Or maybe not… I’m still trying to decide before I renew the registration and insurance and get a car wash and all the other stuff.

I know that when I was well below retirement age, I gave up my job as president of a major record label and felt great about it then and, more important, great about it every day since. Few people in that position do. It becomes part of a person’s identity and they feel like they’re nothing when they cut that loose. I consider myself lucky to not having ever fallen into that trap. These days I wonder how many in Congress, especially the ones in their 70s and 80s think about voluntary retirement seriously. Few enough act on it, that’s for sure. Last year, one, Texas Republican Kay Granger, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, was discovered living— for half a year— in a Fort Worth facility for people with dementia, before her office was forced to finally announce she wouldn’t run for reelection. More Members die in office than retire voluntarily. Grace Napolitano, 88, retired last year after, having been first elected to Congress in 1998. Dianne Feinstein, completely senile, was 90 when she was helped to take her last vote and died the following day. By her last run, the California Democratic Party was too embarrassed to keep endorsing her. It was admirable when Mitch McConnell, 83, announced he was stepping down from leadership and not running for another term. Chuck Grassley is 91, senile and unwilling to retire. On the House side, the gerontocracy is alive and well as members over 80— let along over 70— prepare to run again, including Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC, age 88), Hal Rogers (R-KY, age 87), Steny Hoyer (D-MD, age 86), Maxine Waters (D-CA, age 86), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, age 85), Jim Clyburn (D-SC, age 85), John Carter (R-TX, age 83), Danny Davis (D-IL, age 83), Frederica Wilson (D-FL, age 82), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT, age 82), Virginia Foxx (R-NC, age 81), John Garamendi (D-CA, age 80), and Doris Matsui (D-CA, age 80).

On Friday, The Nation published a piece by John Nichols, Tony Evers Did What Too Many Senior Democrats Have Not. “Evers,” he wrote, “announced Thursday, in his typically understated fashion, that he was bowing out. ‘I’ve spent 50 years in public service, and I’m damn proud I’ve devoted my career and most of my life to working for you, Wisconsin,’ he said. ‘But the truth is that the only thing I love more than being your governor is being a husband, a dad, and a grandpa— and it’s time for me to focus on the things I enjoy and love doing with my family. So today, I’m announcing that I will not be running for a third term.’ Though Wisconsin Democrats would have preferred that Evers make another bid, his decision to stand down was another boost— or, at the least, an important signal— for his party. The field of contenders to replace Evers began filling up immediately Thursday, as a crop of prominent Democratic contenders, most in their 30s and 40s, expressed interest in the race. That’s worth noting. Democrats are wrestling with the question of whether too many of their party leaders are too old— and about whether that reality could cost them politically, as it did when former President Joe Biden had to quit his reelection bid in 2024.”

Now, a real good idea, from a real bad Member, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Blue Dog-WA). Yesterday, Annie Karni reported that the 37 year old Perez said some of her colleagues “suffer from mental decline that renders them unable to perform large portions of their jobs… Last month Perez offered an amendment to a federal spending bill that aimed to create basic guidelines in Congress to ensure that members were able to do their jobs ‘unimpeded by significant irreversible cognitive impairment.’ Her amendment was unanimously rejected, which Perez chalked up to the fact that it prompted an ‘uncomfortable conversation’ and that Congress does not like to make new rules for itself… Perez does not plan to drop the issue, which she said is a major concern for voters.”

Her measure would have directed the Office of Congressional Conduct, the independent watchdog that investigates members of Congress, to develop a standard that the Ethics Committee could use to evaluate any complaint received about a lawmaker alleged to be suffering from cognitive impairment. The Ethics Committee could then release its findings, which she says would make Congress more transparent.

“We have all of these rules about dumb stuff— hats— and not this more significant question of who is making decisions in the office,” she said.

Perez has also been talking to Republicans about cosponsoring a bill that would set some guidelines about mental acuity for lawmakers, and she plans to try again next year to add her proposal to a spending bill.

“This is not an issue that’s going away,” she said. “We’re still talking to other members of Congress about a stand-alone bill, and trying to talk with leadership about a path forward here.”

Perez’s effort comes as Democrats have been grappling with generational tensions since Biden’s forced exit from the presidential race last year. There is broad concern within the party that its aging elected officials are not up to the task of countering an unbound Trump, and that their refusal to step aside is repelling younger voters whose support Democrats need to win elections.

Last year, Democrats pushed out Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, 77, as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, opting instead for Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, 61. There was lingering anger among younger Democrats after former Representative Gerald Connolly of Virginia, who died in May at the age of 75, had defeated Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, 35, to become the top member of the powerful House Oversight Committee.

... The issue Perez wants to address is not new in Congress, where there are now more members than ever age 70 and above. The Capitol has long been criticized as the world’s most powerful retirement home. Aging lawmakers are reluctant to relinquish their jobs and seniority, staying on in some cases well past the point where they can function independently in office. Figuring out how to nudge them aside can be as difficult as getting an older family member to voluntarily give up driving.

Part of the problem is that it is never clear whose job it is to tell an aging lawmaker that it’s time to hang it up and retire. Barring extreme circumstances, elected officials can only be forced out of office during an election, by voters.

At a news conference earlier this week, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, was asked if every member of his caucus was mentally and physically fit to serve another term, and what his role was in helping them make that determination.

“That’s not a discussion that we have had at the moment with individual members who are going to make decisions about their future,” Jeffries said. He added that he expected lawmakers would reach their own conclusions about what was in “the best interest” of their constituents and families.

Perez said she was not looking to rid Congress of elderly lawmakers altogether.

“You should have members of Congress who are navigating those questions of health care and the medical conditions older people face, just like you should have pregnant women and mothers here,” she said. “That makes a stronger body.”

But she said there should be standards that prevent members from serving past the point where they no longer have the capacity to cast votes and do business on behalf of their constituents.

“It’s a question of whether the elected member is making the decisions,” Perez said. It’s really not about a single member; it’s about a systemic failure.”

There’s a dangerous idea, quietly embraced by too many elected officials, Pelosi first and foremost, that they have become indispensable— uniquely qualified to wield power, irreplaceable in the machinery of democracy. It's a seductive delusion that sets in after decades in office, when the perks and the deference and the control calcify into identity. Retirement doesn’t just mean stepping aside; it means— as it does in many industries, the music business included— a kind of ego death. And for those who’ve come to see public office not as a public service but as an extension of the self, stepping down feels like vanishing. That’s why so many stay too long, long past the point of effectiveness— or coherence— and why the halls of Congress increasingly resemble assisted living facilities with better pensions.

But democracy is not supposed to be about personal destiny. The refusal to let go, to make space for new leadership and new ideas, is not an act of devotion to the country. It's an act of vanity. The “indispensability syndrome” is not only corrosive— it’s dangerous. It leaves no room for accountability, generational renewal, or honest self-reflection. Tony Evers understood this. Dianne Feinstein didn’t. And then, of course, there’s Señor TACO— the most visible case of mental deterioration in American political life. His decline isn’t whispered about in hallways; it’s broadcast daily in unhinged speeches, slurred words, mangled syntax and bizarre rants about sharks, batteries, Hannibal Lecter, his predecessors, civil war… He confuses Obama for Biden, thinks World War II veterans are still alive, and stares blankly when asked basic questions. His team tries to spin it as humor, but voters can see what it is: a man falling apart before our eyes, propped up only by cowardice and cult loyalty. The tragedy isn’t just Trump’s mental state— it’s that an entire political party is so degraded it would still follow him into the abyss. And until both parties— but especially the Democrats— are willing to challenge the culture that treats political longevity as a virtue unto itself, they will keep repelling the very voters they need most: the young, the idealistic, and the future.