By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Independent continues to report on crucial issues, providing in-depth coverage without paywalls. A recent development involves Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez’s proposal to assess members of Congress for cognitive impairment. This amendment, aimed at addressing concerns about the aging of lawmakers, ultimately failed to pass during a markup. Despite the lack of success, the proposition reflects the need for open conversations about the capabilities of those in office, as many senior lawmakers have faced scrutiny regarding their ability to continue their duties.
Read the original article here
The idea of a young Democrat advocating for cognitive tests for aging members of Congress has certainly ignited a flurry of opinions, and it’s easy to see why.
A core argument put forward suggests that such tests shouldn’t be limited to just older members. The point is made that corruption, not age, is the real problem. If the goal is to ensure competence and ethical behavior, then the focus should be on financial transparency and accountability, not just on cognitive function. Some wonder, if cognitive tests are the answer, why not implement them for everyone in a position of power within the government? This expands the scope beyond simply the older members to include all those in positions of power. The idea then is to ensure that those in positions of power within the government are held to a higher standard than is currently implemented.
The argument is made that instead of resorting to cognitive tests, the focus should be on the fundamental responsibility of the electorate: choosing capable and clear-minded politicians. The ballot box, in this perspective, is the ultimate test. The question of whether cognitive tests are even a legitimate tool also arises. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 banned literacy tests to prevent disenfranchisement, and some fear that cognitive tests could be used in a similar discriminatory fashion. There is a concern that such tests would disproportionately affect certain groups, creating an uneven playing field and undermining the democratic process.
Some find the emphasis on age to be a form of ageism. The argument put forth is that it’s a disservice to the voters and to democracy as a whole to single out a particular age group for such measures. The argument becomes that the focus should be on fixing the existing problems in the system, rather than targeting certain age groups. This argument expands to making the case that there are changes to the current system of government that need to be made to resolve the issue. The suggestions include implementing changes in the system of funding campaigns, changing the voting process, and removing the practice of gerrymandering. These changes would potentially reduce the incentive for bad actors to run for office, improve the quality of candidates, and create a fairer and more inclusive political landscape.
However, many agree that all members of Congress should be subjected to cognitive tests and not solely based on age. The argument suggests the tests should be standardized and annual for all members, regardless of their age. Many suggest that in addition to cognitive tests, members of Congress should also be tested on their knowledge of basic U.S. history, civics, and government. This highlights the idea that many in Congress, both young and old, may not have a strong grasp of the fundamentals of their positions. Furthermore, the results of these tests should be made public.
The concept of a maximum age limit for holding federal office is another idea raised. The current minimum age requirements are 25 for the House and 30 for the Senate. Proponents argue that setting a maximum age, such as 70, could be a good middle-ground solution. The idea is that it is rare that any aging politicians actually seem to understand any of the problems facing younger generations.