Long Live the King
Queen Elizabeth II, the longest reigning monarch in the history of Britain, is dead at 96. Her husband Philip, the longest term consort to a reigning sovereign in Britain, died last year at 99. King Charles III, at age 73, becomes the oldest king or sovereign ever to become king (by almost a decade) and the longest serving Prince of Wales in Britain’s history. Joe Biden is 79 and if he runs for a second term in 2024 and serves out that term, he will be 86 when he leaves office. His closest rival for the 2024 election is currently Donald Trump, who is 76 now and would be 83 when he leaves office in 2029. The median age of a U.S. president assuming office has been 55 and who knows what that statistic looks like for sovereigns of Britain, but I assume it is as old or older given the lifelong term involved.
The point is, as the world ages, the leadership of the world would seem to be aging as well, at least in the Anglo Saxon world. But then again, while U.S. law is based on Anglo Saxon law rather than the Napoleonic Code (the other legal rubric most dominant in the world), it is unclear that we can say that the United States is any longer a truly Anglo Saxon nation. Famously, Mitt Romney stumbled over that designation in 2008 referring to the the shared heritage of the US and Britain, but the term itself is woefully out of date and inaccurate just as the demographics of both countries have morphed to the point where less than 9% of Americans can link their lineage to anything resembling a British connection. Britain itself links only weakly to the two Germanic tribes, the Angles and the Saxons, that invaded the British Isles before the Norman Conquest in 1066. My point is that in modern parlance, Anglo Saxon is just another reference to white or Caucasian culture (a very complex and debatable delineation), and that alone probably should cause us to retire the term from our referential lexicon. The U.S. is currently 60% white and that is declining fast and expected to dip below 50% by 2045 at the latest. Britain is much more white at about 78%, but the world at large is now only 16% white and falling rapidly. Power and control remains largely in the hands of whites, but that too will inevitably change in the not too distant future.
Does any of that matter? Should any of that matter? I would contend that racial differences should matter far less these days and age differences should matter much more. And then there is gender. We haven’t had a woman President, while Britain is on its third with Liz Truss, and Britain has had six Queens over its history. Unfortunately, the linkages between old white men and power are such that age, race and gender get linked in history and there would seem to be far less equality to any of the three categories of characteristics than makes common sense. That might be too ambitious to assume that power and sense have any connection. But I posit that age is the issue that deserves more examination than the other two at this moment. We have had a black President and almost had a woman President. So, that worries me less than the recent trend towards us having an old President, perhaps especially just as Britain gets its oldest sovereign ever. THis is not a dig on Joe Biden or his performance since he’s been in office. In fact, I think more and more that he is exactly what the nation needed and that he has done an exemplary job in both getting things of importance done, and in resetting the norms for the office and the stability and propriety that the U.S. has stood for. Over the past century.
Nevertheless, I feel like there is a rational debate to be had on age as a factor in today’s modern and fast-changing and complex world. George Washington was 44 when he was given control of Revolutionary forces in 1776. He set a standard for American life by willingly relinquishing his “throne” of the presidency at age 65. Granted that lifespans were shorter then, but experience is not a function of lifespan, it is about years in service, and the truth was that a young nation needed a young leader and it got one. Shit was changing fast and older men were less likely to be able to grapple with that change. And that’s my first and biggest point. Where is the balancing point between experience and the youthful ability to grapple with change in a demanding and changing world?
At age 68, I have a great deal of respect for the wisdom that comes from experience. But I am equally aware of and concerned by the apparently accelerating pace of change in our modern life. Besides the ability to get from here to there faster than ever, we are all inundated with global communication acceleration which has both extremely valuable aspects (education and awareness) and extremely detrimental aspects (misinformation and manipulation). Cyber warfare is the new battlefield and cyber awareness and comprehension belongs much more to the young than to the old. And does that matter? You’re damn right it matters. It is harder for older people, and perhaps especially older leaders, to understand the people they are leading because those people are being influenced moment by moment by a far greater range of other views and people than has ever been the case in human history. Very few changes in human history are as meaningful as that very change and it does more to influence our decisions and our future than any other single factor.
The argument that will be put forth by many is that it is better to have an experienced leader who surrounds himself or herself with younger and up-to-date advisors to help drive through the change and technicalities of modern life. I say that is the second best alternative. The far better approach is to have a younger, more attuned leader that surrounds himself or herself with sage older advisors to lend a patina of experience to the decisions of state as the country muscles through the constantly changing landscape. That may seem like a sublet difference, but I suggest that it is not. Older people are simply less flexible and adaptable than younger people. Younger people, especially the ones with the level of gravitas to rise to national public prominence, will be FAR more likely to take sage counsel from their elders than a much older leader who has to listen to younger advisors about things he or she cannot comprehend, but which may be vital to our very existence going forward.
I grant that this is an area where balance is of the essence and that to err on the side of impulsiveness would not help our collective cause. But I firmly believe that the acceleration of change in modern life demands that our first priority be to have our leaders totally conversant on the things that drive our lives today. As Ariel Sharon once said, “I would rather have a fighter pilot who is able and fearless in getting into his plane, even if he occasionally strafes one of our own airfields.” So, long live King Charles III, but let’s hope William San take the reigns sooner rather than later and perhaps Pete Buttigieg or someone of his vintage can take over the country in 2024.