A Lesson for this July 4th: Revolutionaries Don’t Retire
Revolutionaries don't retire. Passion, not age, predict the will to make positive change happen. July 4 celebrates the Declaration of Independence but it also shows that birthdays are no indicator of who can make a difference.
Joseph F. Coughlin is director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology AgeLab (http://agelab.mit.edu). His research explores how demographic change, technology and consumer behavior drive innovations in business and society. Coughlin teaches in MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Planning and the Sloan School's Advanced Management Program. He is author of the new book The Longevity Economy: Unlocking the World's Fastest-Growing, Most Misunderstood Market (Public Affairs, 2017).
On July 4, 1776, fifty-six Representatives from the Thirteen Colonies ratified the Declaration of Independence, placing the spirit of fervor, liberty, and democracy on which our country stands in writing. Those men, who aged everywhere from twenty-seven to seventy, averaged out at 44 years old. For a group of eighteenth century Americans, the Founders’ collective age is remarkable, considering that the average life expectancy in that era was thirty-five years.
Despite some of them being relatively ancient by the standards of the day in 1776, the Founders were a radical and productive bunch. They were steeped in the revolutionary thinking of the Enlightenment, and used it as the foundation of an extraordinary new form of government. Signing the Declaration of Independence was only one milestone in their long and illustrious careers. Benjamin Franklin was an unstoppable force before and for two decades after the Declaration’s signing, when he was 70. Among other things, he wrote a groundbreaking autobiography, served as the U.S. ambassador to France, contributed to the passage of the Edict of Versailles, and was President of the Philadelphia Abolition Society.
The historical knock on the U.S. is that it was founded and has been led by nobody but old guys (while I can’t argue with the demographic reality, I do take umbrage with the “old” part). Some modern critics argue specifically that the U.S. has grown into a gerontocracy because our elected officials are significantly older than the general population. No doubt there are a number of representatives that are older by any century’s measure in Congress. The oldest representative in the House, John Conyers of Michigan is eighty-eight; and the oldest Representative in the history of the country, Representative Ralph Hall of Texas, ended his last term in 2015 at the age of ninety-one years old.
But is America really a nation governed by geriatrics? The average age of the Senate today is fifty-seven years; in the House, sixty-one years. These numbers are far below the average life expectancy of seventy-eight years. More significantly, they are less than the age we have enshrined as being the end of productive life, the day Social Security kicks in at age sixty-five. Relative to life expectancy, our leaders are “younger” now than they were two-plus centuries before, when the country first embarked on its grand experiment of democracy.
Here’s the bone I have to pick: When we criticize our government as a gerontocracy, are we not making certain assumptions about what older people are capable of, as thinkers, as influencers, as representatives, as advocates of change? And do those assumptions have a basis in reality?
For one answer, take a look at the most recent presidential election. At 70 years old, Donald Trump made an unlikely and successful run at the Presidency, setting the stage for what may turn out to be a major realignment of our national politics. A 74-year-old Senator, Bernie Sanders, became the leader of a resurgent American socialist movement. And 69-year-old Hillary Clinton came within a hair’s breadth of being the first female President. As far as worldview, these three have very little in common with each other. All that they share is that they happen to be well past retirement age, and are still shaking the pillars in the political Thunderdome.
When we look back to history, all the way back to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, then the answer is clear as day: A radical mind and a thirst for change are just as possible at age 70 as age 27. Revolutionaries don’t retire. Those nearing the fabricated 60-something age of retirement can take to this to heart as they mull the future of career and influence in an era of longevity. If he’d lived in the modern day, it’s possible Ben Franklin would have been agitating empires and flying kites in rainstorms at age 96. When we think about retirement, we should first look to him and the other Founders as an example of what can be accomplished in older age.
MIT AgeLab's Rahul Kolluri & Adam Felts contributed to this article.
The ability to speak clearly, succinctly, and powerfully is easier than you think
Antimicrobial resistance is growing worldwide, rendering many "work horse" medicines ineffective. Without intervention, drug-resistant pathogens could lead to millions of deaths by 2050. Thankfully, companies like Pfizer are taking action.
- Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens are one of the largest threats to global health today.
- As we get older, our immune systems age, increasing our risk of life threatening infections. Without reliable antibiotics, life expectancy could decline for the first time in modern history.
- If antibiotics become ineffective, common infections could result in hospitalization or even death. Life-saving interventions like cancer treatments and organ transplantation would become more difficult, more often resulting in death. Routine procedures would become hard to perform.
- Without intervention, resistant pathogens could result in 10 million annual deaths by 2050.
- By taking a multi-faceted approach—inclusive of adherence to good stewardship, surveillance and responsible manufacturing practices, as well as an emphasis on prevention and treatment—companies like Pfizer are fighting to help curb the spread.
Journalism got a big wake up call in 2016. Can we be optimistic about the future of media?
- "[T]o have a democracy that thrives and actually that manages to stay alive at all, you need regular citizens being able to get good, solid information," says Craig Newmark.
- The only constructive way to deal with fake news? Support trustworthy media. In 2018, Newmark was announced as a major donor of two new media organizations, The City, which will report on New York City-area stories which may have otherwise gone unreported, and The Markup, which will report on technology.
- Greater transparency of fact-checking within media organizations could help confront and correct fake news. Organizations already exist to make media more trustworthy — are we using them? There's The Trust Project, International Fact-Checkers Network, and Tech & Check.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.