Editor’s Note: This column marks Gordon L. Weil’s 11th year writing columns for The Times Record. In those 11 years, he hasn’t missed a single submission. That’s a lot of takes and a lot of dedication. Please join us in thanking Weil for sharing his thoughts on key issues for all these years. 

I like old people. I am one.

But I believe that we should not run the government.

Do seniors have the ability to govern? From meeting the job’s formal requirements to helping constituents to raising campaign funds to political travels, the work is demanding and requires both physical strength and mental resilience. No matter who you are, you lose some of that over time.

The two leading candidates for president raise legitimate concerns about aging and its effect in their possible next term. Neither seems worried, having the outsized egos required of presidential candidates and the misplaced belief that they won’t decline further in the next few years, let alone die. Both are in denial about all they have so obviously lost.

For people who would lead a great power like the U.S. in facing incredible challenges, their self-delusion is impressive. Still, no voter should accept the assurances of geriatric candidates, when such assurances fly in the face of the obvious deterioration common among our age group.

Sometimes, seniors in government can be both worrisome and dangerous. California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein, 89, has a solid legislative record. Her term runs through 2024, but she recently spent months ill at home and not at the Senate. Her absence affected the urgent consideration of judicial appointments. Yet she still clings to office.

Her actions recall Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Though an historic member of the Court, she remained on the bench as her health failed when she could have given President Obama the opportunity of replacing her with a jurist sharing her philosophy. Instead, she held on until her death, allowing President Trump to name a conservative successor.

As these cases show, geriatric control of the levers of government extends far beyond the presidency. Senior Senate leaders are aging. Maine Sen. Angus King, 79 and seventh oldest senator, is thinking about a third six-year term. Sen. Susan Collins, 70 and 34th oldest, is in her fifth Senate term.

The choice of running mates has become more critical for the two leading presidential candidates as their ages raise the risk they might not live out their terms.

In 1944, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt looked unlikely to last four more years, Democratic leaders picked Harry Truman, not one of FDR’s favorites, as his running mate. Biden and Trump will handpick the vice-presidential backups for their parties and the country. They’re not likely to let the parties’ convention delegates choose rather than acting as though they are immortal.

But there is another concern about leaving control to the oldest generation. The pace of social and political change in the U.S. speeds up. Listen to popular music. Compare the ballads and rock of Biden’s youth with today’s hard-edged rap. Or look at currently acceptable language or concepts of morality. Old politicians are probably out of touch with much cultural change.

Politicians often talk about trying to improve life for the coming generations of children and grandchildren. They may fail to recognize that these generations are now adults. They are not only capable of making decisions for their futures, but they really should take on that responsibility.

Obviously, experience matters, but it can also hamper imagination and experimentation. Younger people with new ideas should have greater influence on their country and their futures. While politicians exert much energy on current battles, that short-term focus draws attention away from looking long-term at future needs and desires.

Senior control is undemocratic. Only about 16.5 percent of Americans are 65 and older. About half the Senate is at least 65. Biden and Trump top that age by far. The country is more gerontocracy than democracy.

Voters won’t make the adjustment themselves. Candidates need to regard office as a public trust, exercised for a limited period, not as a job to be held until death or senility. A little modesty would help. Term limits make sense to discourage senility in office, if for no other reason. People can keep contributing to their country without holding public office.

For the moment, the age question comes down to Biden and Trump. Each is almost certainly too old to assure us they could satisfactorily serve another term. The lack of alternatives is one more sign the political system is broken.

They could walk away from the campaign, which might well enhance their place in history. Or they could be challenged by primary candidates whose key issue is the need to limit the age of our leaders. Or they could throw the choice of their running mates, each a potential president, to the primaries or the national conventions.

As an old guy, I’d bet on one thing. Based on our experience, a great many of us in the Biden-Trump age group think that neither of them should run.

Gordon L. Weil formerly wrote for the Washington Post and other newspapers, served on the U.S. Senate and EU staffs, headed Maine state agencies and was a Harpswell selectman.