Our aging Senate

When we think about aging in the Senate, it’s natural to think of those who have been there forever, such as Vermont’s Patrick Leahy, first elected back in 1975. What’s really changing, however, is best seen in the contest to replace Jeff Sessions in Alabama.

Sessions will turn 71 later this week, and he had been in the Senate since 1997. His immediate replacement, appointed Sen. Luther Strange, is 64. Strange reached a runoff by surviving a three-way primary. One of those defeated in the primary, Mo Brooks, is 63. Strange lost the runoff to Roy Moore, who was inappropriately old for teenage girls back in the 1970s and is now 70. And Doug Jones, who defeated Moore and will soon be sworn in as the new senator from Alabama, is 63.

Individually, there’s nothing wrong with firsttime senators who are in their 60s. Collectively, it’s a bad idea. It means that the Senate doesn’t adequately reflect the life experiences of younger cohorts. It probably also means fewer fully energized and engaged senators, especially if it’s true (as senators are fond of saying) that it takes a full term to learn how to be really effective within the institution. Yes, there are engaged and energetic senators in their 70s or 80s (and there have been more than enough young duds over the years), but the institution suffers when the average age rises above 60.

I have no idea why it’s happened, or what can be done about it. But I do think parties and voters should do what they can to produce more new senators who are in their 30s and 40s, and fewer that are older. I’d like to see senators in their 20s, too, but the Constitution foolishly prohibits it.