Absolutely NOT a put-down of older people. God knows i take great care of them everyday in my job. There are many older people who's minds are sharp as hell and are full of wonderful stories and wisdom that i love to listen to. I don't see age as some "class" of people-- i see age, all age as a continuum of the human body's progression from birth to death. There are changes through each age range in terms of physical and cognitive health.
But much more often then not, with age comes mental decline. IT'S NATURAL, and we are all headed in that direction. Only a few of us will have the luck to enjoy a clear mind until our last day.
The human brain is no different than any other organ in the body-- it ages and has decline and dysfunction that comes with aging.
Quickness of thinking, mental reaction time, creativity, and rapid access to stored memories are all in various ways affected by the aging process. On a biological level it is explained most simply by 2 processes; 1) reduced/impaired circulation of the "higher cortex" 2) neuronal degeneration degeneration and scar tissue formation
When you begin to develop cognitive decline, what it means in "real life" terms is this:
1) Ability to absorb new information becomes impaired: "computer illiterate" as John McCain calls himself for example. It's no different than the 90's jokes about parents who need their kid's help programing their VCRs. It has to do with the anatomical and physiologic fact that "higher intelligence" is produced at the outer layers of the brain's cortex (the parts of the brain closest to the skull bones). As circulation of blood reaches the outer most layers, the blood vessels narrows down to a diameter can only fit ONE red blood cell a time. Deterioration of the circulation through atherosclerosis formation and "mini-strokes" is a common cause of the decline in circulation.
It terrifies me that McCain has no concept of the depth and power of computing and the internet...i believe all here would agree that it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully understand this technology without acutally being immersed in using it yourself.
What are the ramifications of this "ignorance" and inability to absorb new data when it comes to being President? Answer: see George Bush. Nuff said? Actually, what's worse than a "mispent mind" (ie. Bush's), is a mind that's lost it's optimal functioning trying to perform the job of the President. Bush is not the brightest, but he likely knows that. McCain may think he's the best man for the job, but with advancing senility, he may not be capable of recognizing his own decline, which is much more dangerous.
2) Mood and Behavior can deteriorate: Very common issue. Again for the same reasons. Here the affected parts of the brain include the frontal cortex (around the area of your forehead). This fact is very evident in head trauma patients who have frontal lobe injuries. They can become wildly unstable in terms of mood and behavior. I won't go into the specifics as they are quite complex. However, i'll simplify by saying that this deterioration can often cause mood/behavior instability in that this frontal lobe normally works in "controling" or "inhibiting" our emotional reactions to stress or excitement.
In real life terms; it means that losing frontal lobe functioning would make a person who is normally described as a "hot-head" or "explosive temperment" even more at risk for losing control of his emotions. The frontal lobe is the main area of the brain that "holds you back" when you are really pissed off and want to punch someone's lights out (let's just say).
It's unclear what McCain's temperment was PRIOR to his plane crash in Vietnam and whether his torture during imprisionment produced any brain injuries that may have damaged his frontal cortex-- leading to his well-known reputation of "bad temperment".
I think calling his wife a "cunt" in front of a crowd while she was clearly teasing him in a innocent way about his balding head is such a clear example of someone who just has very little control of his first impulse emotions-- frontal cortex at sleep on the job.
The reckless choice of Sarah Palin has been and will continue to be debated-- so i'll forgo my own comments on it, but only to say it reinforces my statement that uninhibited, poorly considered decisions by a declined human mind is a terrifying possibility with McCain. We've seen what a poorly educated, low-information brain is capable of doing in Bush. Now add some dementia and tempermental instability to that in McCain then send him out to deal with Putin and Medeved-- who are both itching for a fight. Terrifying!
3) Cultural and Thematic Rigidity: the vast majority of cognitively declined individuals exhibit a "locking in" to cultural or intellectual themes that they have relied on most of their lives. That is natural. It is exemplified in older people prefering to listen to music from their era and having great difficulty understanding the current culture and styles. I think this particular statement needs no explaining.
The FONZE lives on!!!
There's nothing wrong with that for most individuals. But when one is charge with running a country-- where there is a premium demanded on a President's ability to quickly absorb, process, and objectively evaluate not just cultural, moral, ethical shifts within the USA, but also in the entire world-- it is imperative that a "Presidential mind" be agile and flexible enough to fully process the current social environment. Simply because new problems frequently require new answers.
What worked for John McCain 5-10-20-30 years ago may not work for America or the world today.
[An aside: John McCain's speech yesterday changed my mind about him. I can like him as a person and for what he's done as a citizen for this country. There where some brief shadows of the man i saw in interviews during the 2000 primaries-- a man i liked and considered voting for. But it doesn't mean i like his policy statements NOW. Whether he "sold out" or if he has "shifted" his beliefs doesn't really matter to me. HE IS WHAT HE SAYS HE IS (to losely steal from Eminem).]
Back on Point- the issue of brain function as it relates to the Presidency:
We've discussed and debated many things that goes into making a good President. My diary is just another angle on that conversation-- the angle of biogly and "cognitive health" as a CRUCIAL component in the chosing of a person capable of making utterly serious and world-shaking decisions.
We pick our Olympic and professional athletes with intense scrutiny of their physical health and capacities. I propose to you that we need that same level of intense scrutiny of our Presidental candidate's cognitive health.
So am i arguing that there be an UPPER age limit for the Presidency? To answer that question, i'd like to first pose a few questions in response:
Why do we cap the age of airline and military pilots?
Why do we cap the age of surgical subspecialists? (not law, but culturally it is practiced in every hospital)
Why do we have an age cap in many corporations?
....i can go on and on, there are many examples of age-caping in practice.
I think you guys can do your own investigations of these and find the answers easily if you don't already know the answers.
My answer is: caping the age of a Presidential candidate doesn't need a law-- it just needs cultural/social acknoledgement that this intensily serious job needs not only the person with the best "track record" in their politics and policy positions that most agree with the American people, but also one who's age and health are most likely to support the most optimal cognitive capacity to handle stressors of national and international-level decision making balanced with a strong background of life/work experience that affords a level of "wisdom" and skill.
Right around the age of 47 sounds about right to me..... ;)
.
.
.
.
UPDATE: In anticipation of charges of "agism" from my fellow bloggers-- i'd like to pre-emptively respond that this is as much "agism" as it's "agism" to not allow children to drink acohol, drive cars, handle guns, and make their own decisions. It's an issue of cultural acceptance (and inhibition) of certain privileges based on society's general beliefs about "age appropriate" abilities. Certainly, if society already deems that airline pilots are required to retire by age 65 due to concerns about cognitive acuity and endurance in the performance of a life-critical job, does it not make sense that the President of the US be under similar restrictions?