Is it ageist to be concerned about Biden’s age?

Amid all the discussion about whether Joe Biden would or should drop out of the presidential race after an unsettling debate performance, I was surprised to not have heard “time to go, Joe” Democrats attacked as ageist. 

Well, Biden’s decline is an acknowledged, visible fact, not necessarily a biased view. Yet I wondered whether there are any voices on Biden’s side who are alleging ageism, even if they don’t use the term. 

The headline of Sheila Callaham’s article in Forbes  — “Demanding Biden Step Down Because He’s ‘Too Old’ Is Wrong. Here’s Why” — could have substituted “ageist” for “wrong.” The wrong, according to the cofounder and executive director of Age Equity Alliance, is thinking that an 81-year-old is categorically unfit to be president. Everyone ages differently. 

That’s not exactly a defense of Biden, but Callaham also said that she was not shaken by Biden’s debate performance, calling it “a very natural cognitive response to a stressful situation.” The opinion was echoed by a couple of other gerontologists who blamed Biden’s poor showing on factors other than his years. 

MSNBC columnist Kavita Patel, a doctor, said that “anyone over the age of 40” who was suffering from a cold and lack of sleep might have had slow response time, confusion, and difficulty finding words. 

Social gerontologist Jeanette Leardi wrote on LinkedIn that Biden was up against a number of challenges in the debate: his stutter, a cold, and a ceaselessly combative challenger. 

The “real questions” in this election, Callaham said, are not about age but about a candidate’s vision and plans, trustworthiness, and monetary support. Leardi noted that debates don’t predict ability to do the job of president, which requires careful deliberation, not quick thinking. "Age brings experience and wisdom," Patel reminded her audience. 

I agree that a poor debater might still make a good president, and that character and ideas should count more than sprightliness. But I don’t think cognitive decline is irrelevant. A president should be up to the rigors of the job. 

“The presidency is a physically and mentally demanding job,” wrote a responder to Leardi’s post. “It’s good and proper for the American electorate to assess a candidate’s physical and mental suitability for the job. And if age is the cause of some unsuitability, well, that is just a fact of life.” 

It is wrong — ageist — to brand someone as too old without evidence. But, since age is the primary reason for cognitive decline, it’s naive to expect that an old person will remain sharp.

Another factor in an elderly politician’s refusal to step aside is that he blocks the way for younger generations to assume leadership, as Northwestern University professors Rachel Jamison Webster and Jillana Enteen wrote in an op-ed published in the Chicago Tribune. “The survival of our democracy depends on the participation of younger generations,” they said. “The point is not that older statesmen are unfit for their jobs, but that they are failing at the deeper level of democratic legacy.” Interestingly, the word “ageist” appears in the headline (“It’s not ageist to say that Joe Biden must bow out”) but not the body of the piece.

I don’t think that Biden should have run for a second term. If, as has been reported, the people close to him hid signs of his decline, shame on them. But here we are, choosing between two oldsters. As I think about ageism, I am aware that the blatant discrimination in this year’s presidential campaign has been the focus only on Biden’s decline. The gibberish of Trump, only three years younger, is shrugged off as “just Trump being Trump.” Let’s hope for a course correction so that both candidates’ cognitive fitness is judged. I have no doubt who will fare better if people really listen.