On Meet The Press yesterday, Kristen Welker asked Adam Schiff if Biden is the strongest Democrat to beat Trump. “Ultimately, this is a decision President Biden is going to have to make and President Biden alone,” responded Schiff. “But I would say this: he has been an extraordinary president. He has created millions and millions of jobs. He has expanded strengthened our NATO alliances. He has brought back manufacturing this country. He has brought about the most aggressive attack on climate change. He’s done more in one term than most presidents ever do, no matter how many terms they get. And he’s running against someone who’s a pathological liar, someone who ran the country into the ground by his mishandling of a deadly pandemic. Someone who is a pathological— not only a pathological liar, but is immoral, indecent, unfit for office. But the performance on the debate stage, I think, rightfully raised questions among the American people about whether the President has the vigor to defeat Donald Trump. And this is an existential race. Given Joe Biden’s incredible record, given Donald Trump’s terrible record, he should be mopping the floor with Donald Trump. Joe Biden’s running against a criminal. It should not be even close. And there’s only one reason it is close, and that’s the President’s age.”
Oops! Big mistake. It is not Biden’s age— at least not his biological age, as we discussed the other day. (All the stuff about stamina, shrinking cingulate cortices and von Economo neurons— which are important for memory, attention, cognitive control and motivation— and protein tangles associated with Alzheimer’s).
Not everyone ages the same way and there are important differentiations between age and the effects of aging on individual performance and perception. While chronological age is simply the number of years a person has lived, biological age refers to the condition of an individual's body systems, which can vary greatly among people of the same chronological age. (See Bernie Sanders as compared to Trump and Biden, for example.) It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to understand that research has shown that lifestyle, genetics and environmental factors play crucial roles in how individuals age. It’s easy to understand that some people experience the effects of aging more slowly due to better health, more robust genetics and healthier lifestyles. Also, talking about it that way is less offensive to older people.
Sure, everyone knows that cognitive function does tend to decline with age, but the rate of decline varies. Academic studies have shown that factors such as mental stimulation, physical activity and overall health can significantly impact cognitive health. For example, the “use it or lose it” hypothesis suggests that individuals who remain mentally active and engaged are often less likely to experience cognitive decline sooner and more steeply. Physical health impacts how aging manifests. Conditions like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses can accelerate aging and its visible effects. Bernie, despite being older than Trump and Biden, has maintained a high level of public activity and mental engagement, which may contribute to his seemingly slower aging process compared to the other two.
I’ve been thinking a lot how public perception of an individual's age and capabilities can be influenced by visible signs of aging, such as energy levels, speech clarity, and physical appearance. Trump, a vain little man, has had massive amounts of “work” done on his physical appearance for decades. On top of that, he comes from a media-centric world where media portrayal and an individual's ability to seem to maintain a vigorous public schedule also play roles in how their age is perceived.
Elderly citizens are the most reliable voters in the country— and by far. Biden is the most popular Democrat with this cohort of any president in decades. Democrats need to understand how to talk about the “age issue” in a way that doesn’t offend or anger these voters. Acknowledging that age brings experience, wisdom and a deep understanding of governance can resonate positively. Highlighting Biden's accomplishments and emphasizing his active and engaged leadership style, the way Schiff did, can help mitigate concerns about his age.
But it’s important for Democrats to stress the concept of biological age vs chronological age and how that impacts performance, explaining that not all individuals age the same way. I’m old; we all know that from our own experience. By focusing on Biden's proven track record, his team’s ability to handle complex issues, and his continued commitment to serving the country, Democrats may be able to present a compelling narrative that counters the age-related critiques. This approach can help reassure older voters that whatever decision Biden makes, the party values him as a capable and dedicated leader. It’s absolutely crucial to frame this discussion in a way that respects the elderly voting bloc, acknowledging their value and experience. By doing so, Democrats may be able to maintain their support while addressing legitimate concerns about Biden's “age,” while nominating the strongest candidate to defeat Trump and lead the country for the next 4 years.
Neuroscientist Daniel Levitin, author of many books, including Successful Aging, was kind enough to write us an addendum from his perspective:
As a neuroscientist who had studied the aging brain, I have opinions about the issue of "how old is too old to be President" and, relatedly, how we should judge the performance of a candidate. Back in 2020, I was called upon to write about the then upcoming race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. I explained that there are vast differences in cognitive ability at any age, and that, although some abilities decline with age, those that are most important for a President— good judgment and decision making— often increase with age. I stand by what I wrote then in MarketWatch, the NY Times, and Vox.
To that I would amplify Adam Schiff's excellent point about performance. In our media-obsessed culture, we tend to be more concerned about how someone looks and acts on camera than how they might perform at work. And that is a potentially costly and dangerous error in reasoning. The performance of Joe Biden in the White House is the only measure that matters. His administration's demonstrated, documented accomplishments are a much better predictor of his competence over the next four years than an hour or two in front of cameras. The way will be perceived the leaders of other nations (whether allies or foes) will be based on his policies and the work of the many people in his administration whom he oversees. Running a country uses a very different skill set than looking good on camera, debating, speaking extemporaneously. The gross error of jugment that we are potentially making is that we feel we are more discriminating, more qualified to judge his performance based on two hours in a single, artificial context, than the hundreds of people who work for him and with him, and who have observed his performance over thousands of hours, in multiple different context.
Age is a factor. Temperament is a factor. But it should simply be a matter of fitness.
NEITHER of these sacks of shit is fit. Neither ever was.
But you morons only care about who does the party want. And ONLY the nazis and democraps are parties in your little minds.
WHAT each party does and does not do is just a matter of how campaigns are conducted. Nothing ever gets fixed. Nothing ever gets better. But you still get your democraps and nazis. And that's all that counts in this shithole.
The fickleness of the Dems is pathetic and a losing game. Biden has been old for ages. The NYT seems to want fascism.
Team Biden eagerly sought the early debate as a means of reviving a lagging campaign. He gave the worst performance I've ever seen in a presidential debate, and I've seen every one of them since 1976.
Reagan's first debate with Mondale in '84 is the only one that came close. He wandered off at various times, and I recall that his closing statement was hard to follow and had to be cut off by the moderator. Reagan, however, came in with a huge lead, and he was able to defuse the issue with a quip in the 2d debate. He also didn't spend half the evening with his mouth open and a blank look on his face. He did sp…