In a political landscape defined by deep polarization, Cory Doctorow identifies a startling anomaly: a policy proposal that commands near-universal consensus across the aisle. The piece argues that the American public has reached a breaking point with the current system of indefinite tenure, revealing a rare moment where the electorate's desire for institutional renewal outweighs partisan loyalty.
The Gerontocracy Crisis
Doctorow anchors his argument in data from pollster G Elliot Morris, which exposes a collapse in confidence regarding the fitness of older leaders. He notes that while a third of Americans still support the current administration's leader, the broader sentiment is shifting. "One of the things keeping me going in these dark days is the pollster G Elliot Morris, whose 'Strength in Numbers' newsletter is a reliable, robust and nuanced source of information about the way other people – including Trump's base – feel about him from moment to moment." This reliance on granular polling allows Doctorow to bypass the noise of personality-driven politics and focus on structural realities.
The core of the argument rests on the staggering bipartisan support for age and term limits. Doctorow highlights that 80% of Americans want age limits for Congress, with support ranging from 78% of Democrats to 83% of Republicans. Even more striking is the desire for an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices, a figure supported by 65% of the public. As Doctorow writes, "This represents 'a level of cross-partisan agreement that's almost unheard of on a high-salience issue.'" This statistic is the piece's most powerful evidence, suggesting that the fatigue with permanent incumbency is a unifying force in a fractured democracy.
"No one wants a permanent gerontocracy."
Doctorow does not shy away from the human cost of this system, citing specific examples where the refusal to step down has led to governance failures. He points to the tragic case of Kay Granger, a congresswoman whose staff concealed her dementia while she remained in office, and Dianne Feinstein, who served with advanced cognitive decline. The author argues that "politicians are wed to a system of seniority and patronage that insists that everyone who 'pays their dues' should get a turn." This framing effectively shifts the blame from individual frailty to a broken incentive structure that rewards longevity over competence.
Critics might argue that age limits could inadvertently remove experienced leaders who remain sharp, potentially destabilizing institutions during critical times. However, Doctorow counters this by distinguishing between age and capability, noting that the current system relies on "incumbency advantage, seniority, patronage and hubris" rather than merit. The historical context of the Twenty-second Amendment, which limited presidents to two terms, serves as a precedent for such boundaries, yet the article suggests that lifetime appointments for the judiciary and indefinite terms for legislators have created a unique vulnerability. The reference to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's decision to stay on the bench, which allowed for a controversial appointment to the Supreme Court, illustrates how the lack of hard rules can have decades-long consequences.
The Stakes of Inaction
The commentary deepens as Doctorow explores the systemic risks of a leadership pipeline that refuses to refresh. He warns that "if your majority rests on a handful of seats and your caucus includes a dozen people who are actuarially certain to die soon, then the whole system could be upended by a couple of highly likely blood-clots." This stark assessment underscores the fragility of a government run by the very old, where the natural passage of time becomes a political weapon rather than a neutral fact.
Doctorow suggests that the solution lies in hard limits, both on the number of years served and the age of the officeholder. He observes that while other popular reforms like abolishing the Electoral College face partisan resistance, age limits are the one idea that "all Americans – including older Americans... agree on: rule by permanent gerontocracy is bad, and should end." This observation is particularly potent given the historical context of political nicknames and personal branding, such as the list of nicknames used by George W. Bush, which often highlighted the informal, personality-driven nature of modern politics. In contrast, the push for term limits represents a return to structural integrity over personal loyalty.
The piece also touches on the broader theme of "enshittification," a concept Doctorow has developed to describe how platforms and institutions degrade over time to extract value. He applies this logic to democracy itself, arguing that the system is being drained of its vitality by a class of leaders who refuse to relinquish power. "It's a system that relies on politicians banking favors from their peers and then paying them back by anointing successors, thus requiring politicians to serve until they are ready to choose that successor." This cycle, he argues, starves the pipeline of new talent and exposes the nation to unnecessary risk.
Bottom Line
Doctorow's most compelling contribution is his ability to frame age limits not as a partisan attack, but as a necessary structural fix that enjoys overwhelming public support. The argument's greatest strength lies in its data-driven demonstration of bipartisan consensus, yet it faces the significant challenge of overcoming the entrenched interests of the very politicians who would need to vote these limits into existence. The reader should watch for how this growing public demand translates into legislative action, or if the inertia of the current gerontocracy proves too strong to break.