The topic of age and generation in presidential politics has been a subject of debate for quite some time now. The questions of whether a presidential candidate is too old or too young have flipped into a prominent issue.
Traditionally, much of the focus has been on experience – the older and more seasoned a political figure, the more likely they were to be considered for the highest office. However, in recent times, there has been a remarkable shift. The focus has begun to lean towards younger, more dynamic leadership, perhaps as a response to society’s evolving and modernizing sensibilities.
A key issue in this debate is the notion of generational change. Younger politicians are seen as more likely to bring fresh ideas and perspectives, enhancing relatability to younger voters. They may be viewed as better equipped to handle the new-age problems like climate change, technology, racial and social justice.
Conversely, older candidates traditionally brought years of political experience and perceived wisdom, offering a sense of security and stability. However, they may also be seen as out of touch with prevalent societal changes or less adaptable to evolving situations.
These factors have collectively upended the age and generation questions in presidential politics. Voters today do not see age in terms of number but in terms of perspectives, values, creativity, and the ability to lead effectively in our ever-changing global landscape.
The 2019-2020 US Presidential election is a primary example of this ‘upended question’, with candidates ranging from Pete Buttigieg,
