The Undeserving Old
Samuel Moyn’s “Gerontocracy in America” blames old people for the country’s ills.
Consider this an un-book review, as well as a critique of the notion that the old are stealing the country’s future from the young. An un-book review entails a promise not to read the book in question. The author’s recent opinion essays in The New York Times and a scathing review of his new book in The New Republic will have to suffice for my purposes. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
In “Gerontocracy in America,” Samuel Moyn contends that old people are hoarding wealth and power, thus preventing younger, more deserving generations from claiming their rightful place in the world. As a result, Moyn believes, America can’t become the innovative, dynamic society he wants it to be and once was. Instead, the country is moving toward caregiving and compassion, God forbid, as the young are occupied with taking care of their doddering parents, who refuse to die.
In his opinion piece in The New York Times dated July 14, 2024, Moyn—a historian who teaches at Yale Law School—defines gerontocracy as “a social form of sclerosis that will persist unless and until more power is transferred from the wrinkled to the rest.” Read that again, and tell me it sounds minimally reasonable or humane.
Unless your favorite sport is kick the elderly, how could any admirer of the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights tolerate such an assertion?
Moyn knows how to gather evidence and formulate a compelling argument that supports his thesis. And here and there, he makes a few acceptable points and policy proposals. But, for the most part, his world-view is prejudiced, wrong-headed, and right in line with the mean-spiritedness of the times.
Is it okay to rely on a bad review?
Relying on a bad review is, I realize, an unorthodox modus operandi as I attempt to formulate a counter-argument to the one being advanced by the author. However, Alexander Zaitchik’s analysis in The New Republic is so trenchant and, even more relevant, so consonant with my own views that I can’t resist drawing on it for the sake of a higher cause.
His review starts with the huge demographic change that has taken place over the past century, in which the average human life span has more than doubled. That is typically hailed as a monumental achievement, traceable to major advances in science, medicine, and public health. Moyn, though, sees that very achievement as deeply problematic.
And it is, to the extent that America is not a society designed to care for its own citizens of any age and circumstance, with the exception of the extremely wealthy.
But America’s pre-existing shortcomings are not Moyn’s concern. As he sees it, the old just selfishly keep going, stubborn old coots that we are. We’ve aged beyond our “fair share” of life, he contends. Zaitchik makes the interesting point that the very medical advances responsible for increased longevity are emblematic of the kinds of innovation he’s nostalgic for.
Moyn further asserts that the old are wedded to the ideas and politics of the past. We lean conservative, or so he believes. We gobble up resources to beat the band, and we support political candidates who give us what we want: Social Security and Medicare, mainly. And tax cuts.
What he fails to grasp is that we want Social Security and Medicare to be there not only for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren; the future generations he purports to care about so fervently, including his own—Gen X, which is arguably the most conservative generation of all. And as for tax cuts, these have been an American obsession since the original Tea Party in Boston and the more recent one, with a brief reprieve in the post-World War II period, when progressive taxation was in flower.
It’s about class, dahling.
Moyn truly believes we live in a gerontocracy (a power structure systemically weighted by age).
It’s true that elected officials have been getting progressively older on average since the 1990s. Voters have as well. But how is that our fault? If younger people aren’t voting in sufficient numbers, let’s tackle that problem; not a cruel and arguably manufactured one centered on the old.
Consider the election of Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City, along with the young and middle-aged candidates he supported in our recent primaries. I was thrilled that Zoomers and Millennials came out in droves to achieve these electoral wins. Surely, the election of democratic socialists is one way to engage the young. And surely, there are others as well.
I’m hardly alone when I advance the view that America has become an oligarchy. Clearly, of course, there’s a Venn diagram that depicts the intersection of advanced age and wealth. I always hear Bernie Sanders’ Brooklyn-inflected voice when I say or write “billionaires” and the urgent need for them to pay their fair share in taxes. Or even better, not exist at all.
Some old Americans are very, very rich, while most of us are struggling or living modestly, like everyone else.
Here’s what Zaitchik has to say about the age/class nexus: Average wealth in the U.S. peaks between the ages of 65 and 74 at over $400,000. But when you remove the top 20 percent of senior households, who control nearly 90 percent of senior-held wealth, a very different picture emerges.
Class, not age, is the determining variable, Zaitchik asserts, and I agree, non-expert that I am.
Let’s take a second look at politics à la Moyn.
He’s for abolishing the Senate and the Supreme Court due to the advanced age of U.S. senators and justices.
By contrast, progressives are critical of these institutions for their undemocratic character, not their age composition. The Senate, which was established in 1787, gives inordinate power to rural states like Wyoming, Iowa, and Idaho. How is it okay that these states each get two senators, the same number as California and New York? As for the Supreme Court, Moyn and I both favor term limits. It’s hard not to see the harm wrought by lifetime appointments, and by justices appointed by reactionary presidents like Trump; justices who will likely continue to issue reactionary rulings that will be extremely difficult to reverse even long after Trump is gone.
Here’s another point of agreement: Per Zaitchik’s review, Moyn acknowledges that the real reason for “elder hoarding” has less to do with greed than with fears that our money will run out before the costly indignities of the last stage of life come for us. (Most of us don’t have enough money to hoard, thus increasing the likelihood that we’ll go uncomfortably into that good night.)
He sees the need for an elder safety net that goes beyond Social Security and Medicare. How about an article on that topic, Sam?
Whatever. Let’s get back to the “bad” Moyn.
He believes in repealing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and instituting mandatory retirement.
He believes in weighting ballots by birth year, proposing that ballots decline in value as voters age. Huh? Political disenfranchisement and mandatory retirement? That sounds like a recipe for oppression with a dash of animus and laced with ammonia.
Who to vilify next?
That’s the title of the film I hope Michael Moore will create in time to counter the excrescences outlined above.
Angry young men, not to mention their female allies and their counterparts in midlife and beyond, seem to be at their happiest when vilifying one group or another: immigrants, women, Blacks, queer people, or us oldsters. Doing so energizes them and gives them a sense of purpose, it seems, as they seek remedies to cultural change, along with the social and economic problems they face.
If you’ve continued to read this un-review, you’re probably well versed in the zero-sum game view of reality that rests on the notion of a fixed pie, according to which any group’s gain represents a loss for others. Advances in the status of women must result in the “oppression” of white men. Comparably, the extension of the lifespan is a gain that must, by its nature, result in the diminution of younger generations: their access to wealth and power; their political influence; their ability to buy a home, get a decent job, and start a family.
These concerns are real. And if America were a social democracy, there would be a number of ways to deal with them. But we aren’t, and there aren’t—not within the constraints of Moyn-world and the rapacious capitalism that eats its young via high levels of debt, poor job prospects, and a future marked by the ravages of climate change. Blame the Republicans and, for that matter, the two-party system tout court. Blame the billionaires. Blame the ruling class, AI, and the profit motive. There are plenty of blameworthy forces afoot in America, but old people aren’t among them.
As for me, I plan to join a gang and make trouble. How about Hell’s Grannies? I promise: We won’t discriminate by age, race, or any other qualifier that smacks of prejudice, wrong-headedness, or just plain meanness. Get in touch if you’d like to join me.