I’m semi-retired from my career, and I made a decision: I don’t put myself in roles where hesitation or fatigue could affect other people. I stay where my experience still adds value without creating risk. That’s not weakness. That’s responsibility, and it raises a question we seem unwilling to ask of the people running our government.
This isn’t about age. It’s about capacity.
When Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) missed months of votes while still in office, it wasn’t a scheduling issue. It was a system failure, and voters weren’t told until it became unavoidable.
When Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had to be reminded by a colleague to cast her vote during a Senate committee proceeding, it raised serious questions about her ability to fully carry out the responsibilities of the office, yet those concerns were widely reported without ever being directly addressed to voters.
When Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) froze mid-sentence on camera, the response wasn’t transparency. It was deflection and a quick return to business as usual.
Something is wrong; we’re the last to know.
Part of the problem is something we rarely name. Aging isn’t just physical, it carries a quiet grief, the loss of who you used to be and the role that defined you. For people whose identity is tied to power, stepping aside doesn’t feel like a transition. It feels like erasure. And when that grief goes unacknowledged, it doesn’t lead to reflection. It leads to denial.
But elected offices are not ceremonial jobs. They are high-stakes, real-time decision roles that require sustained attention, clear communication, and the ability to respond under pressure. When those abilities are compromised, the risk isn’t theoretical, it’s immediate. This standard isn’t partisan, it applies to anyone in power, regardless of party or position.
Experience doesn’t cancel out decline, longevity isn’t a qualification, and “still sharp enough” isn’t a standard. If an elected official cannot reliably communicate, stay engaged, show up, and function without staff quietly compensating behind the scenes, they should not be in office, period, no sentimental exceptions.
Term limits don’t solve this. They measure time, not capability. They might limit how long a problem lasts, but they don’t tell us when it starts. The real issue is simpler and more uncomfortable: we have no honest system for acknowledging when someone can no longer do the job, so we get silence, spin, and a quiet agreement to look the other way until the next incident makes it impossible.
Stepping aside isn’t failure, it’s leadership. The standard shouldn’t be complicated: if you can’t do the job, you step aside, and if you won’t, the truth shouldn’t be hidden from the people you serve. Pretending nothing has changed is how the system fails the people it serves…time and time again.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yeah too bad the Democratic leaders didn’t think this way when they let Joe and Jill decide if he should run for a second term.
Electing Trump is inexplicable because his glaring incompetence isn’t age related, it is simply a lifelong feature. It is as though half the nation voted for self destruction. It’s either that or it’s about white male supremacy which is the most plausible explanation. Beliefs like that cancel out logic and common sense.
If we take back the Senate in November, that would be a good time for Schumer to step down from leadership. That way he could go out on a high note and not cause any more damage than he already has.
Yes, it is way past time when a whole host of ‘senior’ leaders need to step aside.