She was mentally unfit to serve for the last couple years. It was a travesty many countries seem to have no mental bar required to serve or even reasonable age limits (Feinstein was 90!) Any decision "she" was made in the last couple years was made by her aids and not her. This is not how democracy is supposed to work.
Details:
> Four U.S. senators, including three Democrats, as well as three former Feinstein staffers and the California Democratic member of Congress told The Chronicle in recent interviews that her memory is rapidly deteriorating. They said it appears she can no longer fulfill her job duties without her staff doing much of the work required to represent the nearly 40 million people of California.
With our aging population, we need to figure out how to be inclusive of those who can contribute, while identifying those who can not. Hard age limits are likely becoming less desirable as the population ages - retirement at 55 will seem like a joke. But that doesn't mean we should just accept people who are not with it in various positions of power.
Between her and McConnell and the other gerontocrats in Washington, I’m really baffled. Why do these people grip the reins of power until their knuckles turn white? What is so important about political horse trading that they have to literally haul you out of office on a stretcher?
Yes, and she's not the only one who is (edit: was) serving without being functional[1]. We need to start talking about upper age limits for public office. I believe it'd require a constitutional amendment, but I expect there's lots of support for it from all sides. I'd suggest 65 as a maximum age for being elected, which means one could serve to about age 71, for a six-year Senate term.
Say we have a professional psychiatrist, or a whole board of them, evaluating the mental competence of candidates. Occasionally they would designate one as incompetent, who would then be removed from the election.
This would seem to be less democratic rather than more. The voters have less options than before, so the shift in power is from voters to experts.
I've been really surprised by the conversation around this being centered around age when, in my opinion, the controversy should be about a group of staffers exercising the power of a Senator with the tacit backing of the party. There is video/audio of staffers actively teller her what to say and how to vote. The office appears to have usurped her power. Voters aren't being represented by the person they elected.
Her staff could just finish out her term and nothing would change but that's illegal because she's dead.
It is how it’s supposed to work. She was 85 when she got elected the last time. If voters don’t want 90 year olds in office, maybe they shouldn’t vote 85 year olds in for a 6 year term. If she can’t be beat in a primary, then we need something like ranked choice voting so people can safely vote for an alternative third party without risking spoiling the election for a candidate they definitely don’t want.
She held a position of incredible importance (chair of the senate judiciary committee). Her leaving would cause a stalemate and block all judicial nominations.
That's a fact, not a guess.
She should have left, but the reason she didn't should be happening either.
There must be age limit for any job, including senators and presidents.
Or, test them for physicals and minds before they can take on the job, do it annually, it's a normal practice in all other fields, it's good for all sides.
She was also incredibly right wing vs. her constituents and was extremely bought off. She did some civil rights stuff early in her career, but it’s been 100% corruption and destroying the environment for this entire century.
She wasn’t senile that entire time.
(I’ll quantify right wing: She voted with the Trump administration more than any other democrat, and voted like an average republican senator during his administration.)
I know it’s rude to say negative things about a person who has just passed, but I can’t help feeling happy that such an influential Senate seat will finally go to someone that’s not over 70 (hopefully).
There should be age limits for public office and it should match whatever we consider the retirement age to be. We have too many dusty old codgers running things and ruining things, clawing at power and money while destroying civilization for their great grandchildren (which is all the worse, because they’ve met them).
When I see someone like Feinstein elected repeatedly, it’s blatant evidence of how broken politics is in America. In California, apparently, policy positions, personal character, and corruption don’t matter, you can elect a corpse in a wheelchair if it has a D next to its name, and they did.
Adding an age limit would just get you a slightly younger equivalent in that seat (wheelchair?).
At least now you have the (minuscule, I admit) chance that some secure senator will go against his or her party because they know their seat is secure in re-election.
I know the easy approach here is for people to want an age limit in Congress, but I've always been more partial to a term limit.
I'm sure there are plenty of hypotheses as to why this happens, but whatever the cause elected officials seem to have an extremely easy go of getting re-elected these days. The increasing average age in Congress is just a side effect of that in my opinion.
My problem with term limits is being a politician is a job like any other. You get a performance review every few years. But by the time you get really good at the job you're forced to quit.
If there are age minimums for these federal offices there should be age maximums.
Agreed. There may be some older people that are still totally capable. Not everyone's cognitive functions crumble at the same time, to the same degree, or even in the same way. Age limits are a bad solution.
Instead of term limits, I’d much rather they be paid a 99% percentile wage until death, but be banned from accepting any other income or gifts, investing in stocks or owning any sort of business or investment property (again, for life).
It might be better to lower the income to 90th or 50th percentile, so only people that actually wanted the job
would take it.
Ideally, the restrictions would extend to the kids. It would definitely extend to the spouses.
Also, all no campaign donations over $50. Finally, all campaign communications must be publicly archived in realtime, and no more political ads. (The latter is because some politicians now tell different, personalized lies to each constituent, thanks to the internet).
Another possibility is to let anyone volunteer for congress, then pick the winner at random from the pool each term. This worked amazingly well for local positions in some country that tried it. (Government efficiency immediately doubled or something.)
Term limits are just a mechanism to transfer power to un-elected officials and lobbyists, and to make sure any decent politicians are kicked out before they can have any lasting impact.
Imagine working at a job where there were rules that forced your company to lay off all the most experienced folks after a few years.
1- One six-year term on the presidency. Enough time to get stuff done and see the results, but then you're out. The current structure gives the American public 1-2 years of productivity, then they go into campaign mode on the tax payers dime.
2- All official party nominees get the exact same budget for campaigning. Creates a level playing field and neutralizes the power of lobbying
3- Congressman, Senators, Governors are limited to a single 6 year term. This will create a lot of churn, require voters to get engaged to understand the candidates better, and eliminate lifetime politicians who will inevitably be corrupted (I'm a cynic).
Need to ponder how to hedge the power of the people behind the scenes who support the office since they are unelected and undoubtedly powerful (I'm thinking about the people writing Biden's scripts, who are they, who elected them, what do they believ, etc.... we know he isn't doing it).
I don't see a need for term limits- as long as they keep being popular and able to do the job, they should do it.
I see a need for impartial testing of "able to do the job", such as "can count backwards from 20 without falling asleep or missing any numbers or going briefly catatonic".
There is a very likely possibility that Feinstein was senile, with reports she couldn't remember which votes she was taking and what she was doing, and thus she was goaded (or coerced) into maintaining her position by her aides who loved their positions, pay, and their power. There has been skepticism in some of the media but most of the mainstream media pundit class (nytimes op-ed pages and the like) won't broach such a topic because those aides are one of their own.
While I don't disagree that her staff was making decisions for her, most of the people in Congressional positions are making far less than $100k, and their pay has gone down in recent years, especially in context of inflation. Their pay is all available online: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44324 So I doubt that's a driving factor for any of them.
I know the easy approach here is for people to want an age limit in Congress, but I've always been more partial to a term limit.
I'm sure there are plenty of hypotheses as to why this happens, but whatever the cause elected officials seem to have an extremely easy go of getting re-elected these days. The increasing average age in Congress is just a side effect of that in my opinion.
"Colleagues, critics and an increasingly restive field of aspiring successors have questioned her health and fitness for office — a concern, her supporters noted, that few have raised for male octogenarians in the Senate — but friends said she made her decision on her own timetable."
Proof is in the pudding, eh? But more seriously, plenty have criticized McConnell for his public health lapses, and the two of them together kicked off a lot of bipartisan (citizen) grumbling about old politicians. Then of course our main presidential candidates...
The kerfuffle about sexism when criticizing Feinstein is hogwash.
I don't know her full legacy, and I recall her being a good thorn in the side of Bush when he needed one. Sad it took this event to get a replacement.
And Newsom promised to put in a black woman, but also promised not to put in someone actually running for Senate. I wonder if the relevant groups of citizens care about that declaration.
> Since 1789, 301 [ed: 302] Senators have died in office. When a
sitting Member dies, the Senate and House of
Representatives carry out a number of actions based in part on chamber rules, statutes, long-standing practices, and other variables extant at the time of the Senator’s demise.
One of our serious cultural flaws is powerful individuals don't divest their power, and the system doesn't force them too. A prerequisite to becoming rich or attaining political power is a desire to have it. And those people never in their life reduce their scope.
It is nothing shy of disgusting that someone clearly incapable of serving the role of senator dragged her constituents and the country through this till death. Shame on her, her family, and her staff.
Having seen Diane bootlick for the telecoms most of my life, good riddance.
Yes, you heard me. I am not even going to pause for a condolance or bite my tongue. I'm glad she's gone. She was 100% unfit for the position in the last few years of her life and nothing was done about it. This is a problem with US Politics, they are too fucking old to represent the actual population so they are pulled by SIGs and lobbyists. We are not accurately represented.
We need term limits in the Senate. She was part of the problem, and the problem needs to be fixed.
Term or age limits don't fix corporate and media capture. It doesn't matter who gets her seat, they are still going to vote party line and so will you.
I strongly disagree with her politics, and also believe that she should have retired earlier.
A mentor of mine used to remind me, "always react with class". I fail at this a lot, but try.
I think it would be good for you to try too.
And also to remember that she was fairly elected. She was who the people wanted. If you want to be angry, be angry at the people who continued to elect her.
Maybe not so much vitrol directed at her on a day of tragedy.
"Most" implies "some are". Where that line gets drawn is open to debate and discussion, though there are stories which cross the threshold.
In Feinstein's case, she was the senator from California, a powerful region unto itself and with high significance to Silicon Valley, entertainment, and other factors with which HN is directly concerned. That much discussion on such news at HN tends not to be highly substantive is ... unfortunate, though that tends to come with the territory of politics.
There have been other stories about deaths or transitions of significant political figures:
California resident here. Female and in what was then called junior high school when Senator Feinstein became Mayor of San Francisco.
She was one the people who changed the profile of power. That profile can only change so much at a time and change it to accommodate women was and still is a very big deal.
I didn’t always agree with her but I always thought she was committed to public service. And, like any long-serving senator, she changed her mind. Time and growth will do that, especially in a legislative body that should be built on compromise and inclusivity.
It’s sad to me that the end her career became dominated by not stepping down. I don’t know much — or anything — about back room politics but can imagine it was a decision calculated and agreed to by more than her or her staff.
I read an article a few months ago — I can’t find it now because of today’s news flood for her name — that talked about the way she wrote letters, position papers, instructions for years. She communicated in writing. And that is part of what gave her a high functioning staff and one that could support her in this last term. She had spent a lifetime in public service documenting what she thought.
In President Biden’s statement, he wrote that she was often the only woman in the room. Every article is chronicling her firsts. That she was the first woman to represent CA in the senate and that she was tenacious and held on when other people thought she should go quietly seems to me a perfectly logical pairing.
I don't know how to pull it off, but somehow we've got to figure out a way to correct the system that only awards power after decades in office. About the time that members of Congress should be retiring is when they gain actual committee leadership and seniority, and thus the incentives are for a gerontocracy. It also means that those who understand the system are incentivized to vote for and keep incumbents who otherwise may not be the best candidate choice. I wish RGB and Feinstein (and plenty of others still in power) would have had the courage to step aside gracefully, but the incentives for them to stay are just too perverse and stretch far beyond them as individuals.
Why is it that people like Feinstein or Ruth Bader Ginsburg do not retire? Do they fear to be prosecuted by their successors, Soviet style? No pension in their employment contract? I don't understand the mechanism.
I think it's mostly ego. You're a powerful and successful person, the kind of type-A personality who can get all the way to the top of a fairly exclusive profession, and you wind up thinking you're irreplaceable. "I could retire... but I don't trust that the person who replaces me will be as good as I am."
They're not even entirely wrong in the short term -- the Democrats in particular seem to have been doing a really awful job of nurturing younger leadership candidates over the last decade or so. Possibly because of the geriatrics who run the party feeling (subconsciously?) threatened by the push they'd then face to retire...?
A lot of "burn in hell" and "good riddance to a Jew" in the comments (some of it quite un-downvoted even after hours!) - more than usual, especially for HN. Does anybody feel that they have (or can link) an unbiased summary of why she is particularly more hated than other politicians? I don't know anything about her.
[+] [-] bhouston|2 years ago|reply
Details:
> Four U.S. senators, including three Democrats, as well as three former Feinstein staffers and the California Democratic member of Congress told The Chronicle in recent interviews that her memory is rapidly deteriorating. They said it appears she can no longer fulfill her job duties without her staff doing much of the work required to represent the nearly 40 million people of California.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/dianne-feinstei...
With our aging population, we need to figure out how to be inclusive of those who can contribute, while identifying those who can not. Hard age limits are likely becoming less desirable as the population ages - retirement at 55 will seem like a joke. But that doesn't mean we should just accept people who are not with it in various positions of power.
[+] [-] chongli|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldpie|2 years ago|reply
[1] This article is from six years ago. https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2017/10/11/congres...
[+] [-] hirundo|2 years ago|reply
This would seem to be less democratic rather than more. The voters have less options than before, so the shift in power is from voters to experts.
[+] [-] parineum|2 years ago|reply
Her staff could just finish out her term and nothing would change but that's illegal because she's dead.
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jliptzin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pstuart|2 years ago|reply
That's a fact, not a guess.
She should have left, but the reason she didn't should be happening either.
[+] [-] synergy20|2 years ago|reply
Or, test them for physicals and minds before they can take on the job, do it annually, it's a normal practice in all other fields, it's good for all sides.
[+] [-] hedora|2 years ago|reply
She wasn’t senile that entire time.
(I’ll quantify right wing: She voted with the Trump administration more than any other democrat, and voted like an average republican senator during his administration.)
[+] [-] lenkite|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quux|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nscalf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mondobe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tristor|2 years ago|reply
There should be age limits for public office and it should match whatever we consider the retirement age to be. We have too many dusty old codgers running things and ruining things, clawing at power and money while destroying civilization for their great grandchildren (which is all the worse, because they’ve met them).
When I see someone like Feinstein elected repeatedly, it’s blatant evidence of how broken politics is in America. In California, apparently, policy positions, personal character, and corruption don’t matter, you can elect a corpse in a wheelchair if it has a D next to its name, and they did.
[+] [-] layer8|2 years ago|reply
That would create wrong incentives for pushing the retirement age upwards though.
[+] [-] bombcar|2 years ago|reply
At least now you have the (minuscule, I admit) chance that some secure senator will go against his or her party because they know their seat is secure in re-election.
[+] [-] happytoexplain|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flagrant_taco|2 years ago|reply
I'm sure there are plenty of hypotheses as to why this happens, but whatever the cause elected officials seem to have an extremely easy go of getting re-elected these days. The increasing average age in Congress is just a side effect of that in my opinion.
[+] [-] yardie|2 years ago|reply
If there are age minimums for these federal offices there should be age maximums.
[+] [-] seanw444|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hedora|2 years ago|reply
It might be better to lower the income to 90th or 50th percentile, so only people that actually wanted the job would take it.
Ideally, the restrictions would extend to the kids. It would definitely extend to the spouses.
Also, all no campaign donations over $50. Finally, all campaign communications must be publicly archived in realtime, and no more political ads. (The latter is because some politicians now tell different, personalized lies to each constituent, thanks to the internet).
Another possibility is to let anyone volunteer for congress, then pick the winner at random from the pool each term. This worked amazingly well for local positions in some country that tried it. (Government efficiency immediately doubled or something.)
[+] [-] Goronmon|2 years ago|reply
Imagine working at a job where there were rules that forced your company to lay off all the most experienced folks after a few years.
Sounds miserable to me.
[+] [-] lefstathiou|2 years ago|reply
1- One six-year term on the presidency. Enough time to get stuff done and see the results, but then you're out. The current structure gives the American public 1-2 years of productivity, then they go into campaign mode on the tax payers dime.
2- All official party nominees get the exact same budget for campaigning. Creates a level playing field and neutralizes the power of lobbying
3- Congressman, Senators, Governors are limited to a single 6 year term. This will create a lot of churn, require voters to get engaged to understand the candidates better, and eliminate lifetime politicians who will inevitably be corrupted (I'm a cynic).
Need to ponder how to hedge the power of the people behind the scenes who support the office since they are unelected and undoubtedly powerful (I'm thinking about the people writing Biden's scripts, who are they, who elected them, what do they believ, etc.... we know he isn't doing it).
[+] [-] unsupp0rted|2 years ago|reply
I see a need for impartial testing of "able to do the job", such as "can count backwards from 20 without falling asleep or missing any numbers or going briefly catatonic".
[+] [-] noobermin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pandemicsoul|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharadov|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flagrant_taco|2 years ago|reply
I'm sure there are plenty of hypotheses as to why this happens, but whatever the cause elected officials seem to have an extremely easy go of getting re-elected these days. The increasing average age in Congress is just a side effect of that in my opinion.
[+] [-] unethical_ban|2 years ago|reply
"Colleagues, critics and an increasingly restive field of aspiring successors have questioned her health and fitness for office — a concern, her supporters noted, that few have raised for male octogenarians in the Senate — but friends said she made her decision on her own timetable."
Proof is in the pudding, eh? But more seriously, plenty have criticized McConnell for his public health lapses, and the two of them together kicked off a lot of bipartisan (citizen) grumbling about old politicians. Then of course our main presidential candidates...
The kerfuffle about sexism when criticizing Feinstein is hogwash.
I don't know her full legacy, and I recall her being a good thorn in the side of Bush when he needed one. Sad it took this event to get a replacement.
And Newsom promised to put in a black woman, but also promised not to put in someone actually running for Senate. I wonder if the relevant groups of citizens care about that declaration.
[+] [-] js2|2 years ago|reply
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12393
[+] [-] ryanblakeley|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nscalf|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrillgore|2 years ago|reply
Yes, you heard me. I am not even going to pause for a condolance or bite my tongue. I'm glad she's gone. She was 100% unfit for the position in the last few years of her life and nothing was done about it. This is a problem with US Politics, they are too fucking old to represent the actual population so they are pulled by SIGs and lobbyists. We are not accurately represented.
We need term limits in the Senate. She was part of the problem, and the problem needs to be fixed.
[+] [-] swader999|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] claytongulick|2 years ago|reply
A mentor of mine used to remind me, "always react with class". I fail at this a lot, but try.
I think it would be good for you to try too.
And also to remember that she was fairly elected. She was who the people wanted. If you want to be angry, be angry at the people who continued to elect her.
Maybe not so much vitrol directed at her on a day of tragedy.
[+] [-] Aloha|2 years ago|reply
Who was supposed to do something?
[+] [-] SkipperCat|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unmole|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] dredmorbius|2 years ago|reply
"Most" implies "some are". Where that line gets drawn is open to debate and discussion, though there are stories which cross the threshold.
In Feinstein's case, she was the senator from California, a powerful region unto itself and with high significance to Silicon Valley, entertainment, and other factors with which HN is directly concerned. That much discussion on such news at HN tends not to be highly substantive is ... unfortunate, though that tends to come with the territory of politics.
There have been other stories about deaths or transitions of significant political figures:
Senators: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>
Congressional representatives are more difficult to search but do turn up: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23878741>
Presidential elections, not limited to the US: <https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4752077>
[+] [-] 0cf8612b2e1e|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImHereToVote|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharadov|2 years ago|reply
We have retirement limits but no limits for our leaders who are presiding over the most important political offices and making critical decisions.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marniewebb|2 years ago|reply
She was one the people who changed the profile of power. That profile can only change so much at a time and change it to accommodate women was and still is a very big deal.
I didn’t always agree with her but I always thought she was committed to public service. And, like any long-serving senator, she changed her mind. Time and growth will do that, especially in a legislative body that should be built on compromise and inclusivity.
It’s sad to me that the end her career became dominated by not stepping down. I don’t know much — or anything — about back room politics but can imagine it was a decision calculated and agreed to by more than her or her staff.
I read an article a few months ago — I can’t find it now because of today’s news flood for her name — that talked about the way she wrote letters, position papers, instructions for years. She communicated in writing. And that is part of what gave her a high functioning staff and one that could support her in this last term. She had spent a lifetime in public service documenting what she thought.
In President Biden’s statement, he wrote that she was often the only woman in the room. Every article is chronicling her firsts. That she was the first woman to represent CA in the senate and that she was tenacious and held on when other people thought she should go quietly seems to me a perfectly logical pairing.
[+] [-] barrad0s|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] poulsbohemian|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway4good|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kemayo|2 years ago|reply
They're not even entirely wrong in the short term -- the Democrats in particular seem to have been doing a really awful job of nurturing younger leadership candidates over the last decade or so. Possibly because of the geriatrics who run the party feeling (subconsciously?) threatened by the push they'd then face to retire...?
[+] [-] happytoexplain|2 years ago|reply