I am continually astounded by how much past controversies remain unresolved today. For my entire adult life, including now, I have listened to Republican medical establishment leaders claim that government-run medicine is socialist and should be avoided or severely limited. They point to the apparent shortcomings of health systems in Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere as proof that the largely privatized system in the U.S. is superior. Further, they summarize their view by saying that the U.S. should reject “socialized medicine”—hoping to capitalize on Americans’ previous condemnation of socialism for more than 100 years.

It’s time to correct such distortions.

Ronald Reagan’s Canard

Twenty years before he became President, Ronald Reagan recorded an audio LP message urging Americans to oppose efforts to establish government-run medical programs for the elderly. Prior to entering political life, he made this recording at the request of the Women’s Auxiliary of the American Medical Association as part of their anti-Medicare program, Operation Coffee Cup, to host meetings at which they could play it for their neighbors.

Reagan’s primary argument was that establishing a government-controlled program of medical care would amount to a major step in promoting socialism and ending democracy in America. He decried such proposals as “socialized medicine”—a watchword of Republican opposition ever since.

In support, Reagan quoted Norman Thomas, an avowed socialist candidate for president six times earlier in the 20^th century, as saying, “The American people would never vote for socialism. But,…under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.”^[i]

Unfortunately, no evidence exists that Norman Thomas ever said this or anything like it. The quotation appears to have been entirely made up. Whether Reagan lied or merely used some other (uncited) source that falsely attributed these words to Thomas cannot be known.^[ii] In any event, Republicans have trumpeted the fear of socialism as the primary reason to oppose Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) ever since.

Share

Reagan’s Objections to Medicare

Reagan opposed the bill introduced by Aime Forand (D-RI) in 1957 that would have added hospital, nursing home, and surgical insurance coverage for Social Security beneficiaries. Reagan stated three objections:

1. The bill would impose “compulsory insurance” through the Social Security Act over Americans’ rejection of socialized medicine when first proposed by President Harry Truman. Compulsory health insurance would ignore whether senior citizens had substantial income, savings, or their own private insurance. It would destroy individual freedom.

Appropriate response: Making health insurance coverage compulsory is necessary to keep costs as low as possible. If participating (i.e., contributing) in a program is not compulsory, many healthier individuals will forego health insurance since they, presumably, don’t need it. That leaves mostly unhealthy persons in the program, which will unduly raise premiums and other costs. Only a compulsory, universal coverage system will spread the health care risk sufficiently to restrain costs for all. (A similar rationale underlies states’ requiring all vehicle owners to carry automotive insurance.) And nearly all persons will need health care at some point in their lives.

2. A nationwide compulsory program would interfere with the relationship between individual patients and their doctor. “Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place: the privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to choose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.”^[iii]

Appropriate response: Ironically, privately administered programs, known as Medicare Advantage, often require members to seek medical care from a specified network of providers. Such requirements can be coercive in the case of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) or enforced by financial incentives through preferred rates negotiated with providers in Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs). Sometimes, in-network providers do not accept new patients, making it difficult to access needed care.
Original Medicare imposes no such limitations and pays for care by any licensed provider who accepts Medicare payments.

3. Finally, doctors would lose their freedom under a universal, government-run health care system. Doctors would be told that they can have only so many patients, that specialties would be divided among various doctors by the government, and that doctors would be distributed geographically, perhaps against their will. This last point was perhaps the one that most concerned AMA members.

Appropriate response: The days of individual practices by physicians are nearly over. Most physicians now practice in multi-provider organizations, some of which are quite large and are owned by huge corporations. Indeed, the vertical integration of medical services whereby direct care, pharmaceutical services, and health insurance administration within large corporations such as UnitedHealth, Cigna, CVSHealth, and BlueCross/Blue Shield has resulted in problems for both patients and health care providers that are now receiving bipartisan attention in Congress. These large corporations, not the government, mostly determine the rates at which health care providers are paid. Further, these large companies do not ensure that rural regions of the country have enough providers available to meet the need or that hospitals and clinics receive sufficient support.
Practices of giant health care companies have resulted in exactly the situation against which Reagan warned.

Ironies of History

After his condemnation of socialized medicine in 1961, Ronald Reagan as President set in motion the rolling back of New Deal and Democratic social programs that eventually resulted in inadequate and costly health care, among other problems. In 1961, he warned against creeping socialism that was allegedly spearheaded by Social Security and proposals to establish a government-run health care system.

Ironically, some of Reagan’s warnings have come true—not because of government-administered programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but because of privately administered health care and insurance.

Today, giant health insurance corporations routinely deny care that has been prescribed by patients’ physicians and that would normally be covered by standard Medicare. Such denial of care is built in to the corporations’ business plan as a necessary component to holding down “medical costs” that reduce profit. Reagan warned that such denial of care would be implemented by government bureaucrats, not by private companies—the exact reversal of what has actually happened.

Similar conclusions emerge regarding payment to health care providers, support for hospitals and clinics, pharmaceutical prices, and the cost of health insurance. Republicans are now “experimenting” with plans to require prior authorization for treatment normally covered by Medicare in order to make standard Medicare more like the corporately administered Medicare Advantage programs.

Let’s be clear: the problems of today’s health care system stem not from socialism (whatever that might mean), but from increasing corporatism. It’s time to get beyond the lies and fearmongering of warnings about “socialized medicine.” It’s time to implement Medicare for All—a program that extends health care to everyone as a human right. If other developed countries can do this, so can we.

Reagan did offer good advice: he told his listeners to contact their congressional representatives. We should all do that. But this time, make sure that they understand that Reagan was wrong. Get with the times!

Subscribe now

The success of this newsletter depends on your engagement and support. Therefore, I invite you to take one or more of the following actions:

• “Like” the post by clicking on the heart (❤️) icon.

• Restack the post (with just two clicks).

• Share the post with friends or colleagues.

• Sign up for a free or paid (preferred) subscription (best alternative!).

As always, comments are welcome.

NOTES

^[i] Ronald Reagan, “Socialized Medicine,” transcript of audio recording, American Rhetoric: Online Speech Bank, 1961, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreagansocializedmedicine.htm.

^[ii] Snopes, “Norman Thomas on Socialism,” concludes that attributing this quote to Norman Thomas is FALSE. 26 September 2009. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/norman-thomas-on-socialism/.

C. Eugene Emery, Jr., “No evidence for Norman Thomas quote on Democrats embracing 1940s socialism,” Politifact, 2 November 2018. This article contains a thorough summary of relevant historical research and consensus on this matter. https://politifact.com/factchecks/2018/nov/02/blog-posting/no-evidence-norman-thomas-quote-democrats-embracin/.

^[iii] Reagan, “Socialized Medicine.”

Illustration by maulana ahmad on Unsplash

During the spring of 1964, when I had just graduated from college, I learned that both of my parents had been fired from their jobs. My mother taught 5^th grade at our elementary school for about 20 years, and my father was the only mathematics teacher at the high school for 25 years. (Yes, my mother was my 5^th-grade teacher, and my father taught all my middle and high school mathematics classes—a rather odd situation.)

Their firings were sudden and immediate. My father asked the town superintendent—the sole authority for the schools since there was no school board—why their contract was not being renewed. He was told, simply, “Because I just found out that you’re both Democrats.”

In small-town, rural Indiana during the 1950s and 60s, being a Democrat was the equivalent of being a socialist or, worse, a communist. And this was the beginning of the era when the U.S. was fighting to contain communism in Southeast Asia. Building on anti-communist ideas of the 1950s and the unsupported allegations of Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), the extremist campaign of Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) was in full swing against President Lyndon Johnson.

Share

McCarthyism 1.0 and Its Effects

While still too young to vote during the 1950s, I naïvely supported the positions of Barry Goldwater and other conservative politicians (see my earlier post, Conscience of a Former Conservative). When Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) accused U.S. Army officers and State Department officials of being communists or at least communist sympathizers, Congress convened the Army-McCarthy hearings (1953-54). McCarthy’s allegations were widely viewed as a veiled attack against President Dwight Eisenhower, a former 5-star general during World War II.

Although McCarthy was finally disgraced because of his bullying manner and inability to provide evidence that supported his charges (he died in 1957 at age 48), anti-communist fervor gripped the country. Many public figures were wrongly accused, and some were imprisoned. A short list:

• Charlie Chaplin

• Lucille Ball

• Leonard Bernstein

• Pete Seeger

• Arthur Miller

• Dalton Trumbo (Hollywood writer, producer who was imprisoned)

• Lena Horne

• Orson Welles

• Langston Hughes

• Gypsy Rose Lee

All these people were mainstream cultural figures during my high school years. Several were punished for refusing to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) charged by Congress to investigate possible infiltration by communists.

And accusations were not confined to celebrities or public figures. The hunt for communists touched school boards, town and city councils, labor unions, and local communities. My schoolmates and I wondered if our social studies teacher was a communist because he seemed unconcerned about the communist threat (he wasn’t).

The pressure to support U.S. policies intended to “contain communism” was strong and lasted throughout the Vietnam War. Democrats tried to outdo Republicans in their anti-communist fervor. Hence, there was little community support for my parents. Nevertheless, they were immediately hired by the larger school system in our county seat, which required them to relocate to a new house. Others were not so fortunate.

UPGRADE

McCarthyism 2.0 Today

Of late, members of the President’s Cabinet—Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, J.D. Vance, and others—have followed Trump’s lead by calling critics of Trump and his agenda “Communists.” As a member of the generation that lived through the Second Red Scare (the first occurred during and just after World War I) and who witnessed the personal destruction that it caused, I’m warning everyone to reject this kind of fearmongering.

When I hear today’s Republicans resurrecting this old political chestnut in an attempt to demonize all opponents, the awful consequences of the Second Red Scare flood my memory.

Some have pointed out how the actions, policies, and aims of the Trump administration mimic political and social practice in totalitarian communist countries. A comparison of U.S. actions and policies under the Trump regime to those of communist or authoritarian countries is not flattering.

MAGA’s Outdated Bluff

MAGA supporters and Trump often criticize others for doing what Trump is doing or trying to do. It’s basic projection amounting to confession.

After all, Trump and his supporters are the ones who are attempting to seize total control over public affairs, while ignoring existing laws and regulations. They are attempting to rig upcoming elections and intimidate voters who might oppose their aims.

My generation, especially, should see through such rank deception after having lived through similar attempts decades ago. The real threat comes from within the U.S., just as it did when Joseph McCarthy publicized his unfounded accusations.

Don’t buy it. Fight for the ideals and approach to government that enjoyed generally bipartisan support from the 1930s until Ronald Reagan initiated class warfare of the wealthy against the poor and middle class. The future of ordinary Americans hangs in the balance.

The success of this newsletter depends on your engagement and support. Therefore, I invite you to take one or more of the following actions:

• “Like” the post by clicking on the heart (❤️) icon.

• Restack the post (with just two clicks).

• Share the post with friends or colleagues.

• Sign up for a free or paid (preferred) subscription (best alternative!).

As always, comments are welcome.

TO ALL MY SUBSCRIBERS AND READERS:

First of all, please accept my heartfelt thanks for your support (especially if you have signed on for a paid subscription). Your subscription and attention means a lot and is the main reason that I continue to provide the best information that I can.

For those of you who are paid subscribers, please know that I have suspended collection on your subscription until I can resume posting regularly.

I’m taking a couple of weeks off to get some household chores done along with a little rest. There’s no emergency, medical or otherwise. So I should be posting again by late July or early August.

In the meantime, please feel free to browse the archives to catch up on any posts you might have missed. Especially if you are a recent subscriber, now would be a good time to join the conversation on topics that interest you.

One Other Thing:

Elder Vibes has grown substantially during the past year. Since I’m trying to convey information of interest to elderly folks, I hope that continues. But future growth depends on you to a large degree.

While it is always good to click “like” (❤️) to show your support, past experience has shown that the number of views grows robustly when you restack or share a post. This is an effective way for free subscribers to show support.

It’s as easy to restack a post as it is to click the ❤️, and sharing only takes a couple of clicks. So please do one or both of these things so that others can benefit from and contribute to the discussion on Elder Vibes.

See you in a few weeks!

William Barnett

During the last few years, I’ve noticed several articles online indicating that a majority of elderly folks become increasingly happy as they move through their 60s and 70s on their way to their 80s and beyond. I do not doubt the accuracy of such claims, especially since they are based on reputable social science.

Nevertheless, why it is necessary to call everyone’s attention to such data? Surely, the fact that most older people are happier than younger cohorts can help assuage fear of growing old. But do those who are happy in their elder years need such reassurance? Is it really necessary to bootstrap feelings of happiness? Might not their happiness be its own reward?

Probing a little deeper, perhaps the authors of such articles want to show that we’re actually doing pretty well, as a society, in taking care of our elders. Or maybe pointing to older folks’ happiness diminishes the guilt that arises because of their good fortune.

Share

But we simply are not taking care of millions of elderly folks in a way that respects their human dignity. Millions of older adults lack adequate nutrition, especially after the Trump regime and a supine Congress have slashed support programs such as SNAP and Meals on Wheels.

Millions more find it increasingly difficult to maintain residential independence and are compelled, for financial reasons, to move into substandard housing or face homelessness.

Especially as older adults continue to age, millions face a crisis of loneliness—bereft of family ties and meaningful friendships. One of the advantages of Meals on Wheels (as my parents showed me when they delivered meals in their 70s) is the regular checking on homebound elderly folks.

I’m not going to load up this article with statistics. You can find relevant statistics and additional information in the following articles:

I’ve written about food insecurity for elderly folks in Elder Orphans: Coping with Food.

Housing issues for older citizens were discussed in Elder Orphans: Housing.

I’ve also given attention to the epidemic of loneliness in Elder Orphans: Challenges.

My (too obvious) point is that for millions of elderly citizens, we are not doing well at all. And the war against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federally subsidized housing and nutrition programs is making things much worse.

Crowing about how old age is not scary, that your elder years can be the happiest of your life, does not help. Old age is surely a happy time for many, perhaps most, elderly citizens. But it is a happy time only for those who enjoy financial security, adequate nutrition, stable housing, and the company of loving family members and friends.

I guarantee that older folks who lack one or more of these things are not happy. We should be ashamed of that in what is still the wealthiest country in the world.

Solutions have been proposed by many. We simply lack the political will to implement them. Vote accordingly in November!

I am happy to welcome, once again, my friend and former colleague, Raymond B. Williams,[i] to Elder Vibes as a guest author. Now in his 90s, Raymond offers wise perspective on how he accepts the realities of his later years. You can learn more about him in the note below. As always, comments are open to everyone. William Barnett

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

I have thousands of pictures accumulated over many decades — black-and-white images (with strips of negatives; perhaps you remember what negatives are), color images with information written on the backs, and hundreds of digital images. I first took photographs with a small box camera, then with a Nikon camera through several lenses, and more recently with my iPhone. Many photographs are gifts from relatives and friends.

Recently, I have been going through dusty old boxes that have not been opened for decades. The boxes contain images of family, colleagues, and scenes that emerge from dusty resting places, almost like a resurrection of people, places, and things.

Many elderly people store boxes of such photographs. A friend posted on Facebook recently that she has reached the age when she no longer wishes to relive her earlier life, but she still finds pleasure in remembering parts of it. I agree with her.

Remembering pleasant experiences from the past is good. On the other hand, I don’t want to relive traumatic experiences. Fortunately, we don’t often take photographs or preserve images of our failures, embarrassments, ineptitude, pain, or sin.

Share

A colleague from Wabash College, where I taught, is an avid photographer who maintains a photographic record of his life and decades of public events at the college. “Every photographic image embodies a story,” he said while showing his slides to a group of friends.

That caught my attention. I wrote a private memoir to preserve for my children a story of important events and people who influenced our family. I realized that I was preserving stories without the matching images that embody the stories. I spent many hours searching through my materials to select the appropriate images to accompany the stories and insert them into the memoir.

This experience leads me to the following recommendations for anyone who might wish to engage in a similar project:

• Write a memoir to preserve a record of people and events that are important to you. We imagine that our children and grandchildren will absorb the important things automatically from our family or acquaintances. Recent immigrants I interviewed during my research recounted fascinating stories of their migration. I urged them to write accounts and make videos to preserve their stories for their families. I was surprised to learn that my own children did not know about many of the people and events most important to our family. Memories shape our identity and help us to capture the prophet Isaiah’s wisdom to “look to the rock from which you were hewn and to the quarry from which you were dug” (51:1).

• Everyone must preserve their own memoir. Each person has a unique perspective, making it infeasible to write a memoir for another person, even for a spouse who has been involved with the same people and events.

• We preserve many images that are not worth saving. Discard them.

• My wastebaskets are overflowing with discarded pictures and negatives. I have also deleted hundreds of digital images because I have forgotten their stories or because I want to forget the events.

• It is wise to write identifying information and the significance of images on the back of photographs or beneath digital images. That saves a great deal of time when sorting through the images.

Our son gave us a digital picture frame for Christmas. This modern device replaces many photos in old albums and boxes on our shelves. We discarded many and our son digitized more that we saved on our computers. The frame can be set to turn on and off at selected times. The images change at whatever speed I select. We have placed the frame opposite our easy chairs so that we can watch the slideshow at any time.

Already, some 300 images have been uploaded to the slideshow. Our children can add images to our frame from their computers remotely. Only we can establish order or delete images. Our images are in random order and do not tell the kind of connected story that my memoir attempts to convey. It is not a movie, which is a blessing. I do not have to fill in the gaps. Each image brings to mind a unique story.

In this project, I emphasize pleasant images and memories. At this stage of my life, it is not helpful to dwell on the ugly aspects of the past. We have enough difficulty avoiding the unpleasant events bombarding us through the media every day.

For example, my digital picture frame does not contain images of my father or brother in the final stages of illness, and certainly no funeral images. Moreover, I don’t believe dwelling on unassuaged guilt helps one live a better life. Nor is it helpful to dwell on or repeat the shortcomings of others. Those are best covered by forgetfulness and mercy. No good comes to them or me by recalling failures or gossiping about them.

When I was a student, psychiatrists from a state hospital visited my graduate theology class. One of them said that the work of theologians and preachers is to create guilt, whereas his work as a psychiatrist is to get rid of guilt and its harmful effects. Even back then, seven decades ago, I knew he was wrong about theology and the Christian gospel. The good news of the gospel does not create guilt; it provides the message of forgiveness and renewal that overcomes guilt, sin, and evil.

An African proverb says that people who are remembered by name still influence those still living for good or ill and are part of “the living dead.” Images of people now deceased appear before me in the frame slideshow, and I give thanks for their continued positive influence on my life.

I lift up my eyes regularly to look across the room and ponder digital images that embody pleasant memories and stories. I am filled with gratitude and thanksgiving for the blessings of travel through many countries, shared explorations with family, meetings with interesting people, and being surrounded by beauty and beautiful people. By the grace of God, those move me forward with hope and faith for the future.

[i] Raymond Brady Williams, Ph.D. (University of Chicago), has enjoyed a long retirement since 2002 after serving as Professor of Religion at Wabash College. He was also Founding Director of the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion and of the Wabash Pastoral Leadership Program. He is the author of several books on a wide range of topics, including the religions of India, immigrants from India and Pakistan, and teaching religion. Now at age 90, he and his wife, Lois, live near the Wabash College campus.

Photo by Md Ishak Raman on Unsplash

I’m angry. Last week, I received a message from the AARP Foundation asking for donations on their Giving Day (Wednesday, 5/13/2026) “to help end senior poverty.”

[Senior citizens are] working long after retirement age, rationing medications, skipping meals or struggling to navigate systems that feel impossible to access. They’re facing rising costs at the grocery store and the gas pump, limited safety-net support and barriers that no one should have to face in their later years.

Support from caring people like you helps AARP Foundation connect older adults with the resources they need—access to healthy food and essential benefits they’ve earned, legal advocacy and job support that helps them stay stable and independent.

My problem is not the appeal to help older adults. The cause is worthy. Rather, I’m greatly annoyed that an appeal to private charity is necessary at all.

Food Assistance for Older Adults

Starting on May 1, 2026, changes to eligibility rules for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are fully in effect. This means that work requirements and reporting have been expanded for more older adults, causing more than 1 million older adults ages 55 to 64 to lose their SNAP benefits. The reason is that they will no longer qualify unless they can document working, volunteering, or participating in job training programs for at least 80 hours per month.[1]

Increased SNAP work requirements come at a time when more older adults need food assistance and when the Trump regime has cut benefit funding by $186 billion through 2034. When rising food prices are added to the mix, the situation will become dire for many.

I have previously noted the difficulty that many older adults face in finding employment because of age discrimination. The current lack of job growth, especially in jobs requiring little education or training, increases the challenge.

Further, the Republican-controlled Congress included an especially cruel change in the law by no longer exempting unhoused persons from SNAP work requirements. How can anyone living on the street or in a shelter have any real chance of finding employment?

In addition to cuts for SNAP, funding has been reduced for food banks and programs such as Meals on Wheels. Food banks must now provide services after having at least $1 billion cut from USDA programs. State and local funding will be unable to fill the gap.[2]

Share

Cuts in assistance also come at a time when agencies are coping with food price inflation, fewer resources to use for purchasing from local growers, higher fuel and delivery costs, and increased demand from an aging population.[3]

To cope, food assistance programs are lengthening waitlists, cutting back on service hours and frequency, and tightening eligibility standards to prioritize those most in need. Such reductions increase food insecurity among the elderly, as well as the provision of safety checks and social interaction.[4]

What Should Be Done

When the richest nation in the world chooses not to feed or care for its elderly population, something is drastically wrong.

After wresting control of the government from the current authoritarian regime that brags about throwing people off SNAP benefits, Democrats should move to treat food security, housing, and health care as fundamental human rights. Expecting private donations—including donations from elder citizens to help other older folks—to resolve such problems is unrealistic and morally wrong. These are functions that should be handled by government, perhaps in partnership with private organizations. To allow the current situation to fester is outrageous.

For now, we need to recall and return to one of FDR’s Four Freedoms: Freedom from Want. Americans are too accustomed to helping meet basic needs through private donations—an approach that is rarely sufficient to meet the full demand.

Give if you can, but remember that there’s a lot more work to do. Whether you give or not, at least vote for candidates who will address the problem.

Subscribe now

The success of this newsletter depends on your engagement and support. Therefore, I invite you to take one or more of the following actions:

• “Like” the post by clicking on the heart (❤️) icon.

• Restack the post (with just two clicks).

• Share the post with friends or colleagues.

• Sign up for a free or paid (preferred) subscription (best alternative!).

As always, comments are welcome.

NOTES

[1] Anika Nayak, “SNAP Benefits in 2026: What Older Adults Should Expect from Work Requirements,” Think Global Health, 5 January 2026, https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/snap-benefits-in-2026-what-older-adults-should-expect-from-work-requirements.

[2] “Seven Takeaways on the Federal Funding Cuts,” Food Bank News, 9 April 2025, https://foodbanknews.org/seven-takeaways-on-the-federal-funding-cuts/.

[3] Liz Seegart, “Meals on Wheels and Similar Programs Left in Limbo Amid Agency Dismantling,” Association of Health Care Journalists, 16 April 2025, https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2025/04/meals-on-wheels-and-similar-programs-left-in-limbo-amid-agency-dismantling/

[4] Seegart.

When I emerged from graduate school in 1976 with a new Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago, I mailed about 300 letters to various colleges and universities, inquiring about possible teaching positions. Half of the recipients replied that there was no room at their inn. The other half never bothered to respond.

I was frustrated because, having attended several academic conferences, I knew that many faculty were still working beyond what most people considered normal retirement age. Why couldn’t these old fogies get out of the way and make room for my younger cohort, who were up on the latest research methods? How can professors in their 70s relate to students who are 50 years younger?

I was about to give up on a career in academia. As a hedge, I had been accepted for admission to two law schools when a friend notified me that he was leaving his current position to move to another institution. He thought I could get the job. I did, and I enjoyed a fulfilling teaching and administrative career in the years that followed.

My career experience has caused me to rethink my earlier resentment. Having taught with and supervised senior faculty members, I now oppose current efforts to reinstate mandatory retirement for college faculty.

Before proceeding, I must point out that the question of mandatory retirement for college faculty overlaps with current attacks on tenure. Many people know nothing about the practice of tenure or misunderstand it as a lifetime appointment regardless of circumstances.

Academic tenure is actually a commitment to the continuing appointment of a faculty member who has spent several years earning the required degrees and credentials and an additional period of evaluation. It carries broad freedom to engage in teaching and research within the faculty member’s area of expertise. Employment can be terminated, however, for just cause—including serious malfeasance such as sexual harassment or abusive, discriminatory behavior—or financial distress of the college or university.

For more details about tenure, please see my Higher Ed Success article from April 2023, Should College Faculty Tenure Be Scrapped?

Share

The Attack on Older Faculty

Over the past decade or so, many calls have emerged for reinstating mandatory retirement for college faculty. Often, these critics have also urged eliminating tenure for college faculty as a way to make things easier.

Just last month, Samuel Moyn, Kent Professor of Law and History at Yale, published an opinion article, “Professors Are Too Old: The Academy’s Gerontocracy Problem Is Worse than Anyone Admits.”[1]

In last week’s post, “Gerontocracy Is Not a Thing,” I disagreed with Moyn’s main thesis about how older persons control too much housing, jobs, and wealth. You might consider reading that post before going further with this one.

Professor Moyn states his thesis early in the article.

“Faculty members benefit over time from age-related privileges. Favored by seniority, they hold on to their higher-paying posts while blocking opportunities for younger scholars. An aging professoriate is more set on preservation than on renovation, stymying innovation and originality.

“Welcome to gerontocracy in the academy. Graying professors are an extreme instance of a national syndrome, since they choose when (and if) to retire and can keep their jobs in spite of cognitive and other physical decline.”[2]

He proceeds to cite several statistics, showing how the number and proportion of faculty in their 60s, 70s, and beyond have grown in recent decades. Further, the deleterious effects are not limited simply to the hoarding of wealth.

“At American universities, unfortunately, those toward the end of their time are at their maximum power — not just to reap the highest salaries, but also to lighten their own teaching and service obligations, shunting them to their junior colleagues.”[3]

Rather than cite any compelling evidence for this claim, Moyn simply says, “Trust me on this.”

Pointing out that younger scholars have an increasingly difficult time finding academic employment, he asserts that older faculty are obstructionists who offer nothing of value.

“This generationally toxic combo [of older faculty enjoying employment and younger scholars going without] means that younger academics today regard those elders much as serfs on the brink of the French Revolution saw the noble lords. If tenure, ostensibly for the sake of protecting fearless speech, is being eroded today, the main culprit isn’t the conformist pressure of either centrist donors or woke students. Rather, it’s the conversion of tenure into a gerontocratic class alibi among those with little new (let alone disturbing or scary) to say. No wonder administrators across the land are eliminating it by hiring young people without its protections, if they are hired at all.”[4]

The rest of Moyn’s argument adds nothing of real significance, although the language is loaded and vivid.

Unfortunately, Prof. Moyn’s opinions are widely shared both within and outside academia, especially among financially worried administrators, donors, and public officials. Without evidence, most are ready to assume that older faculty inevitably bring less value to their students and institutions.

Share Elder Vibes

A Different Perspective on Aging Faculty

As I admitted above, I once agreed with Moyn’s conclusion because I was personally affected. Things for young scholars are even worse now. When I tried to enter the academic market, around 75% of faculty were tenured or tenure-track; 25% were adjunct or part-time. Those numbers have now flipped. Today, only about 25% of college faculty are tenured or tenure-track; the rest are part-time with low salaries and no benefits.

In this environment, there is no guarantee that these proportions will improve. Whenever full-time, tenured faculty members leave their position (through retirement, illness, or death), the line becomes vacant. Bean-counting deans salivate over such situations.

A faculty vacancy offers an opportunity to shift the line from one department to another where, perhaps, student demand is greater. Or a vacancy provides a chance to hire part-time adjunct replacements at a much lower salary and with no benefits. Maybe expensive, upper-level courses can simply be eliminated.

For example, why replace an experienced, well-regarded professor of English who has specialized in Chaucer studies with a similarly credentialed, albeit younger faculty member? After all, courses in Chaucer are lightly enrolled, and anyone, part-time or full-time, can presumably teach first-year writing. (By the way, such a presumption is incorrect.)

This financial logic has been chewing at the ranks of full-time, tenure-track faculty for the past 50 years. What is otherwise lost is simply ignored.

In my experience, older faculty contribute much. And, with some exceptions, they tend to do so until they retire or otherwise leave. By not having to continually worry about and search for employment, older faculty can and do

• Serve as effective mentors for students beyond encounters in regular courses

• Help students obtain internships and gain admission to graduate or professional programs (admission officers pay more attention to such recommendations)

• Direct important initiatives such as curriculum reviews, enhancing relations between a college or department and communities, or institutional self-studies for accreditation or regulatory purposes

• Enhance their institution’s reputation in the eyes of the community and government officials.

• Complete important research projects in the sciences, social sciences or humanities

• Provide a source of institutional memory as presidents, provosts, and deans come and go

• Offer guidance about teaching to new, inexperienced faculty members (most graduate programs fail to prepare their students to teach in any serious way)

Over the years, I’ve been honored to have taught with and, later, supervised many senior faculty. From that experience, I can attest that concerns about lack of productivity by senior faculty in teaching, scholarly research, or institutional service are largely unfounded.

As a younger, tenured faculty member, I thought I knew whatever was necessary to teach students. But when I had an opportunity to team-teach an honors humanities course with a senior English professor, I came face-to-face with my own ignorance.

My colleague required our students to stage a scene from one of Shakespeare’s major plays. He provided no guidance other than requiring them to memorize their lines and to think about how to present their character. After each scene was presented to the class, he asked, “Why did you present your character in the way that you did? What were some alternatives that you rejected, and why?” This approach compelled students to analyze each character in the broader context of the play and their own understanding of human nature. Student engagement and enthusiasm zoomed.

I realized that I needed to approach my own teaching more thoughtfully and in light of what others had found effective.

In a few instances, the productivity of senior faculty fell off. But I found that helping them get back on track often resulted from a conversation about what they were feeling or experiencing. Perhaps they needed some financial support to complete a research project. Sometimes, they were coping with a serious illness at home that cut into the time that they could devote to institutional service. Sometimes, a bit of encouragement and recognition could work wonders.

In a few instances when a faculty member simply refused to do what was normally expected, I would remind them that they would forfeit any merit pay raises until normal performance resumed. Other sanctions, short of termination, could also be applied. But usually, the positive incentives above were more effective.

When considering the perks that older, tenured faculty enjoy, we should remember that college faculty are not the only professionals who have the advantage of indefinite, continuing employment. Physicians (except surgeons) can usually count on continued employment, as can lawyers, public-sector employees (except for health and safety considerations), and many union members.

If that seems unfair, I would ask whether we really want to make at-will employment—where a person can be terminated for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all—universal, with no exceptions. Instead, I suggest that at-will employment does more harm than good, and not just for college faculty. When a part-time faculty member is worried about paying rent, putting food on the table, or treating an illness, effectiveness in teaching and research will suffer.[5]

Finally, one point that Moyn and other critics fail to mention: many senior faculty simply love what they’re doing. They gain tremendous satisfaction from helping students learn, think, and express themselves. They enjoy conducting original research for long periods of time, even if the end product remains elusive or unremarkable. They feed off interacting with their peers about ideas, research methods, and approaches to teaching.

Such engagement, even enthusiasm, I contend, is contagious and leads to achieving the goals of higher education and improving society. The proper path to address the problems that Moyn and others identify is to devise programs, including funding, that create more opportunities for younger scholars. Leaving a multitude of young scholars underemployed or unemployed is bad for us all.

The success of this newsletter depends on your engagement and support. Therefore, I invite you to take one or more of the following actions:

• “Like” the post by clicking on the heart (❤️) icon.

• Restack the post (with just two clicks).

• Share the post with friends or colleagues.

• Sign up for a free or paid (preferred) subscription (best alternative!).

As always, comments are welcome.

NOTES

[1] Samuel Moyn, “Professors Are Too Old,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 23 April 2026. This link might lead to material behind a paywall.

[2] Moyn, “Professors Are Too Old.”

[3] Moyn, “Professors Are Too Old.”

[4] Moyn, “Professors Are Too Old.”

[5] Those who wish to follow up in this area should read Deepa Das Acevedo, The War on Tenure (Cambridge, UK; New York, NY; Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press, 2025), DOI 10.1017/9781009596787, www.cambridge.org/9781009596824. This volume contains an excellent description of what people go through to become a tenured professor in the context of tenure as an instance of employment law. The author holds a Ph.D. in anthropology and a J.D., both from the University of Chicago. She is a tenured professor of law at Emory University.

You’ve surely noticed the same complaints that I have: our politicians and officials are too old. We need more innovation in government, business, and education rather than simply doing what we’ve always done. Old people need to get out of the way. They should move out of homes that are too large for their needs. They shouldn’t work beyond the age of retirement—whatever that turns out to be. Public officials should drop the reins of power at some point.

Currently, Samuel Moyn, Kent Professor of Law and History at Yale University, is giving voice to these complaints in a forthcoming book, Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Hoard Power and Wealth—and What to Do About It (Farrar, Straus and Giroux: June 2026). Based on portions of this book, he has laid out his argument in three recent articles—two in The New York Times and one in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The Case for Gerontocracy

Prof. Moyn’s main thesis is that Americans now live in a gerontocracy in which old people control too much wealth and power.

“Older Americans deserve a say over the future even when they might not live to see it. But they do not deserve the stranglehold over it they currently enjoy through overrepresentation in elections, which produces too many regressive policies and too many seniors in the highest offices.

“Older Americans are owed the care that everyone else funds. Indeed, they should get more of it than they get now — including funding for long-term care at home or in nursing homes. But they also need incentives to give up accumulated housing, jobs and wealth.”[1]

While acknowledging that many older persons do not receive the care and support that they need, Moyn asserts that older Americans dominate the political process in ways that actually oppose measures that would benefit them and younger generations.

For instance, senior citizens vote in numbers that are proportionally greater than those of younger cohorts. They also support stricter controls on immigration, ironically, at a time when they depend on immigrants to provide the care that they need.[2]

Share

The wealth gap between older and younger citizens is extreme.

In 2019, it was calculated that Americans under 40 years old, who added up to 37 percent of the population, held a mere 5 percent of America’s wealth, whereas those over 54 — the same number of people — held 72 percent.[3]

The wealth gap is caused by the increasing number of older workers who command the best jobs and do not retire as early as they once did.

Further, older folks also “hoard” the best housing by remaining in homes that no longer meet their reduced needs.

Moyn proposes several measures to address these problems:

• Impose age ceilings on political offices, including judgeships.

• Make it easier for younger people to vote.

• Reinstate mandatory retirement policies, especially for white-collar sectors.

• Implement a progressive property tax on older homeowners to incentivize them to downsize and to pay for new construction.

• Improve the social safety net for those who need it to reduce motivation for holding onto housing and jobs.

According to Moyn, our political gerontocracy is especially troublesome. The 20^th-century increase in life span and the number of healthy years for most Americans has resulted in political institutions—the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court—being controlled by older officials who often continue to serve until death.

The obvious remedy is to impose age limits—say, age 75—on most public officers.[4]

Finally, Moyn describes what he considers to be gerontocracy in higher education.[5] I plan to address his argument for this sector in a future joint post for Elder Vibes and Higher Ed Success.

Subscribe now

Why the Case for Gerontocracy Is Wrong

In fairness, I must acknowledge Moyn’s assertions that ageism (improper discrimination against older persons because of their age) is wrong, that many elderly Americans do not receive the care and support that they need, and that senior citizens have a right to a say in public policy even when particular policies will affect events after they die.

Nevertheless, his attributing problems such as lack of affordable housing, gainful employment (especially for professionals in various sectors), and wealth inequality to control of society by older citizens is overly simplistic and should be rejected.

Consider, for example, the ages of current justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

John Roberts (71)
Clarence Thomas (77)
Samuel Alito (76)
Sonia Sotomayor (71)
Elena Kagan (65)
Neil Gorsuch (58)
Brett Kavanaugh (61)
Amy Coney Barrett (54)
Ketanji Brown Jackson (55)

Only four justices are in their seventies, while the remaining five are well below or just reaching age 65. Moreover, the conservative or liberal opinions of the Court cannot be correlated simply with age. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 87 at the time of her death.

A similar picture emerges when one considers members of Congress. Conservative, MAGA, or reactionary positions cannot be attributed merely to older representatives and senators. Some of the current MAGA regime’s strongest supporters are quite young. And several strong critics of the regime are older (e.g., Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren).

Finally, only our two most recent presidents, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, would be considered elderly—one liberal, the other reactionary (to put it politely).

No, things are much more complex.

For example, consider Moyn’s contention that older people retain managerial or senior positions well beyond their sell-by date in order to hoard more wealth. Some do, but certainly not the majority.

I’ve previously addressed this issue in my post, Older Folks at Work (please read it for the complete argument).

There, I showed that the cohort of workers aged 60 and above has grown rapidly and that the trend is likely to continue. The vast majority report that they continue to work because they need to supplement Social Security benefits in order to pay for basic living expenses. Many barely squeak by, having to settle for minimum-wage jobs that pay far less than what they earned during their previous careers. For those who cannot find adequate part-time or gig work, the alternative is gruesome.

Because of age discrimination (ageism), many older workers are excluded from regular, full-time employment commensurate with their skills. Many are more likely to be self-employed (23% compared with 10% of workers aged 25-64) or to be relegated to the gig economy. Ageism prevents many older adults from finding work despite their skill sets.

Share

How Old Is Too Old?

The major question here, as I discussed at length in a previous post, is How Old Is Too Old?

Normally, we consider this question in terms of employment and cognitive or physical skills. And as Moyn points out, many occupations carry very low mandatory retirement restrictions: airline pilots (age 65), air traffic controllers (56), federal law enforcement (57), federal judges (except Supreme Court, 70), nurses (often 65), and railroad engineers (60).

Other occupations do not mandate retirement (unless by individual company policy): attorneys, college professors, consultants, farmers, freelance writers/designers, independent contractors, physicians (except surgeons at some hospitals), researchers, scientists, social workers, and teachers.

Note that government officials or many other positions of authority, such as corporate executives, are not subject to mandatory retirement. And that is Moyn’s main point. It might be desirable, as he and others contend, to impose mandatory retirement limits for such positions, but I contend that doing so will not likely affect trends in determining public policy.

Take an issue of interest to senior citizens. A majority of elderly people would welcome an expansion of basic Social Security benefits and inclusion of hearing, vision, and dental benefits. Doing so, however, would require removing the cap on income levels subject to Social Security and Medicare withholding.

Even 30 years ago, I was pressuring my representatives to do just that. Now, the primary proponents of enhanced benefits and funding of Social Security are Senator Bernie Sanders (age 84) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (36). Several older members of Congress oppose such a change, even though their opposition is not in the interest of their older constituents or themselves. I conclude, therefore, that the problem is not gerontocracy.

What’s the Real Problem?

What, then, is the problem? Not age, but wealth inequality.

Generally speaking, wealthy legislators and officials, regardless of age, oppose measures that would improve the lives of senior citizens. That’s why we can’t have nice things like sufficient health care support and affordable living arrangements for elderly folks. Even when the current regime ends, providing an expanded social safety net will be an extremely heavy lift.

When billionaires (of whatever age) and their bought-and-paid-for officials support continuing large tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of health care, education, scientific research, and social services for all who need them, the problem is not a gerontocracy. The problem is oligarchy in an environment of late-stage capitalism.

Should we entertain mandatory age or service limits on public officials? Perhaps. But remember that doing so will not solve all our social or political problems and will risk depriving the country of knowledgeable, experienced, and compassionate individuals, regardless of age.

Since I reject the conclusion that gerontocracy is the foundation of our social and political problems, I’d be interested in what you think the problem really is and what we should do about it. Please let me know in the comments.

The success of this newsletter depends on your engagement and support. Therefore, I urge you to take one or more of the following actions:

• “Like” the post by clicking on the heart (❤️) icon.

• Restack the post (with just two clicks).

• Share the post with friends or colleagues.

• Sign up for a free or paid subscription.

NOTES

[1] Samuel Moyn, “Older Americans Are Hoarding America’s Potential,” The New York Times, 21 April 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/21/opinion/ageism-gerontacracy-america.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eVA.6tzu.f_7FOhNcwA_R&smid=url-share.

[2] Moyn, Hoarding America’s Potential.

[3] Moyn, Hoarding America’s Potential.

[4] Samuel Moyn, “America’s Gerontocracy Problem Goes Far Beyond the President,” The New York Times, 14 July 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/opinion/america-gerontocracy-biden-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eVA.4adz.5pnadJs_IVzK&smid=url-share.

[5] Samuel Moyn, “Professors Are Too Old: The Academy’s Gerontocracy Problem Is Worse than Anyone Admits,” The Chronicle of Higher Education,” 23 April 2026, https://www.chronicle.com/article/professors-are-too-old?utm_campaign=campaign_17851629_nl_Academe-Today_date_20260427&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Iterable&sra=true.

In my later years (I’m 83), I’ve become skeptical about bromides like this one. Always willing to learn new things, I’m continually surprised by familiar tasks that have suddenly become challenges. And when others younger than I remind me about how easy some activity is (for them!), I can turn grumpy.

In truth, “It’s as easy as riding a bicycle…” is a forbidden expression in my household. The problem, you see, is that as a youngster I rode my bike everywhere. My bike was my only mode of transportation until I was old enough to drive a car, and even then, I preferred the bike for short trips. I was an expert.

Now, however, inserting balance into my life has become a daily chore.

About a year ago, my (much younger) spouse suggested renting a couple of bikes for a short outing along a greenway that meandered through parks and alongside lakes. “It will be a great way to get out into nature and enjoy the wonderful weather,” she urged.

Recalling the pleasure of riding bikes during a vacation on Martha’s Vineyard some years ago, I readily agreed. After all, you never forget how, right?

Share

The perfect day came. We met the rental vendor in a park where she adjusted the height of our seats and handed us our helmets. Helmets? I never wore a helmet when I was a kid. We didn’t have them. And even if they had been available, anyone who wore one would be ridiculed as a wimp. But rather than refuse, I decided to humor the nice lady and put on my helmet.

After we were on our own, I straddled my bike and pushed off. Oops! A little wobbly there! Moving my front wheel from side to side a little more than necessary, I decided that all I needed was a little speed to smooth things out. So I pedaled faster and immediately headed for the edge of the paved trail.

I stopped and straddled the bike, wondering if this was going to be the great adventure as advertised. Meanwhile, my spouse was happily cruising down the trail about a quarter mile ahead of me.

Nope! I’m not going to quit now. Things will get better as I become accustomed to balancing on a moving bike again. So, I pushed off, picked up a little speed, and started to catch up. Still, things didn’t seem quite right. The unthinking comfort and relaxation that I recalled from my youth never kicked in. This time, I had to concentrate on what to do when threatened with toppling over.

As we continued our journey, we began to meet riders and pedestrians going the other way. So long as I was meeting another cyclist, I could simply allow them to quickly move on. But when meeting pedestrians, especially those with children or dogs, my heart was suddenly in my throat (where it obviously didn’t belong). I was torn between two horns of a dilemma: I didn’t want to crash into anyone, and I didn’t want to appear as if I couldn’t ride a bike. After all, I was an expert!

At the first encounter on a long boardwalk bridge, I overcompensated to avoid wiping out an entire family and grazed the bridge railing on my right. I stopped, rested for a few seconds, and pushed on—this time with less confidence. Clearly, this would not do.

In anticipation of a next time, I hit on the ruse of pulling off to the side and appearing fascinated by animals or birds in the forest. You would have thought I’d encountered a denizen from Jurassic Park. When the real danger of parents, kids, and yippy dogs had passed, I would resume my leisurely, somewhat shaky pace.

Of course, by the time I caught up with my wife a half mile down the trail, she had enjoyed a 20-minute rest and was ready to scoot again. That started the cycle all over.

Share Elder Vibes

Later, as we were returning to our starting point, my wife had gone ahead, assuming that I would tag along at my own pace. Suddenly, my front wheel slid off the pavement, sending me headfirst down an embankment, bike and all. I landed on my head in a pile of leaves with the bike on top. I lay there a while, upside down, to catch my breath and make sure that I hadn’t sustained serious injury. Thank God for my helmet!

Meanwhile, my wife had turned around and returned, looking for me. As I was struggling to get my bike in shape again (the brake cable was twisted), a young fellow stopped and helped straighten things out. Onward!

After a short while, I fell again. This time, as I was meeting an elderly woman walking her dog, I hit the right wall of an underpass and toppled. My wife was following me and saw the whole thing. The woman with the dog came over and asked if I was hurt. She was very solicitous. I assured her that I just had a couple of scrapes. Determining that only my clothing had absorbed the punishment, we pedaled silently back to our car. I was relieved to see that it still had four wheels.

Since then, I’ve discovered several other tasks that are not as easy as riding a bike.

For instance, my feet are now much farther away from my hands, making it more difficult to pull on socks and shoes.

Navigating stairs, especially going down, has become an activity requiring close concentration. I recommend using a handrail whenever possible.

Going up and down ladders can be tricky, especially when you forget that there is one more step at the bottom.

I’ve been working on restoring my sense of balance. I do heel-to-toe walking, standing on one leg at a time, and leg squats. And I’ve learned that maintaining balance is a major challenge for many older people. When we fall, we risk debilitating injury that could restrict mobility and hasten further decline.

Image by Manfred Antranias Zimmer from Pixabay

One last thing: Just before our bicycle adventure ended, we met a woman who was riding a recumbent trike—an adult tricycle where you sit and pedal from a reclining position. Next time, that’s for me!

Image by kalhh from Pixabay

In April of 1960, I was wrestling with what to say at my high school commencement. As valedictorian of my class (of 21!), I was expected to thank our parents and teachers (check) and to offer some perspective on what our generation faced (not checked).

In those days, I considered myself what many, including Hillary Clinton, called a “Goldwater Republican.” Dwight Eisenhower was President during my middle and high school years, and I supported him, mostly as an act of rebellion against my Democratic father. I had read J. Edgar Hoover’s Masters of Deceit: The Story of Communism in America and How to Fight It (1958) and similar books.

That spring, my mind was filled with Barry Goldwater’s arguments in Conscience of a Conservative (1960) that set out a position on government and public policy to the right of Eisenhower’s. My valedictory address generally repeated Goldwater’s emphasis on winning the war against Communism and fighting against the creeping socialism of our own government that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal had begun.

How naïve of me!

Goldwater’s Argument

When researching the political leanings of my generation, I recently discovered (to my disappointment) that a majority supported Republican presidential candidates most of the time. Why? What positions did we find attractive?

When I took another look at Goldwater’s book, I discovered two things:

1. The book was largely ghostwritten by L. Brent Bozell, Jr., brother-in-law to William F. Buckley, Jr. (Goldwater performed the final edit).

2. He repeats rather uncritically the meme of the individual, free man (women excluded), exemplified by soldiers and cowboys. Since my peers and I had grown up during the 1940s and 50s with stories of cowboys (the Lone Ranger, Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers, etc.) and military adventures stemming from World War II, the ground was already fertile for Goldwater’s approach.

While peeking below Goldwater’s trademark cowboy hat (he actually grew up in upper-class circumstances), you find that his political thinking rests on a particular view of freedom. When he mentions preserving or restoring freedom in American politics, he means advancing the ability of individual men (never mentioning women) to enjoy the fruits of their labors and to do what they want. His emphasis on individualism is extreme.

Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make: they cannot be made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human beings.[1]

The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being. Today, therefore, he is at odds with dictators who rule by terror, and equally with those gentler collectivists who ask our permission to play God with the human race.[2]

Goldwater admits that the state does have legitimate functions that support individual freedom: preserving social order, maintaining military defense, administering justice, and “removing obstacles to the free interchange of goods.”[3] But any other role for government that is not required by the Constitution—such as federally funding education, supporting “welfarism” (including Social Security), or providing subsidies for farmers—leads to socialism or Communism and should be resisted.

As a former major general in the Air Force who helped to racially integrate the armed services, Goldwater generally supported expanding civil rights. But he opposed federal interference in what he called “states’ rights” in such matters. In his view, if citizens of particular states were unhappy with the denial of civil rights or other matters such as lack of funding for schools, it was up to them to change their laws or elect more receptive officials.

In Goldwater’s view, was there a proper role for government? Yes, but that role is always limited, and the exercise of government power is divided.

Share

Isolationism and the Road to Perdition

In keeping with Goldwater’s emphasis on freedom, he continues the Republican tradition of isolationism (although the word never appears) in foreign affairs. Prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, Republicans pursued a policy of isolationism, known as “America First,” to keep the U.S. out of foreign wars, especially the war in Europe that had been raging since 1939.

In Chapter 10, “The Soviet Menace,”[4] Goldwater refers to the period after World War II—when the U.S. was the only country with nuclear weapons and the strongest military in the world—as the time when U.S. security was completely secure. He goes on to analyze several aspects of U.S. foreign affairs that should be treated with extreme skepticism in the interest of strengthening national security. In each of these areas, he opposes American tendencies to appease our Communist enemies out of “a craven fear of death.”

Defensive Alliances: NATO and other alliances are not designed to protect against Communist encroachment, especially political penetration, everywhere in the world.

Foreign Aid: American aid to other countries provokes resentment at their being dependent on the dole. Moreover, aid as charity is unconstitutional since “the American government does not have the [constitutional] right, much less the obligation, to try to promote the economic and social welfare of foreign peoples.”[5]

Negotiations: Diplomatic negotiations weaken American interests because Communist leaders never permit discussing their political interests or commitments (e.g., their interest in maintaining East Germany or Poland within the Soviet orbit). Only American interests are on the negotiating table as liable to “adjustment.”

Disarmament: U.S. suspension of nuclear arms testing and agreeing to limit or destroy current stocks of nuclear weapons should be avoided. Testing should proceed since radioactive fallout from atmospheric or underground testing is negligible(!). Further, since Communist nations enjoy superiority in conventional weaponry and personnel, American nuclear capability provides the only military balance available.

[T]ests are needed to develop tactical nuclear weapons for possible use in limited wars…to offset the Communists’ manpower superiority.[6]

Besides, Communists cheat.

Note: Goldwater’s position on nuclear testing and possible use of tactical nuclear weapons came back to bite him as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson distributed devastating ads depicting Goldwater as the candidate who would destroy the world through nuclear holocaust.

United Nations: While withdrawal from the UN is probably not feasible, U.S. involvement with UN agencies and bodies such as the Security Council must be handled with extreme caution. The UN is infested with Communists. American submission to UN-directed policies would surrender American sovereignty.

For those paying attention, the similarity of Goldwater’s positions regarding domestic and foreign affairs to policies promoted by Project 2025 and the Trump regime is crystal clear. Such similarity runs like a red thread from the 1960s to today.

Share Elder Vibes

A More Comprehensive View of Freedom

My rejection of Goldwater Republicanism didn’t take long. Upon going to college, I found myself engaging with people from social backgrounds radically different from my own. And while my professors were not uniformly liberal, they were relentless in expecting students to conduct thorough analysis, formulate coherent arguments, and produce supporting evidence. That combination of more diverse experience and acquiring academic research tools caused me to take a closer look at my political and social worldview.

Looking back, I now see that Goldwater and Bozell willfully used a truncated notion of freedom that limited the concept to individual persons. They also neglected to consider social and economic conditions that prevented many persons from realizing their potential and living rich, human lives. This individualistic notion of freedom was intended, willful, and the source of much mischief later.

In truth, there was already a broader understanding of freedom that Goldwater, Bozell, and their colleagues actively opposed. That view was summarized in President Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech, delivered on January 6, 1941.

1. Freedom of speech and expression

2. Freedom of worship

3. Freedom from want

4. Freedom from fear

These four freedoms combine traditional American civil liberties (speech, worship) with economic and international relations (minimal standard of living, reduction of military power). The objective is to provide a worldwide context in which human beings can flourish. The reasoning is simple.

If people are hungry or ill, they are not free to flourish.

If people are uneducated, they might not fulfill their potential.

If people are marginalized or discriminated against, they cannot prosper.

A more comprehensive expression of human rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR).

This document lists 30 fundamental rights and freedoms that include affirmations of human dignity, legal protections, privacy, thought and expression, and economic and social rights. I encourage you to read the document for yourself.[7]

Interestingly, the United States has never ratified the UDHR because Republicans object to obligating the country to fulfill economic rights in addition to civil rights. Further, implementation of the rights enumerated in the UDHR could have important consequences for U.S. conduct of foreign affairs. Goldwater and Bozell were fully aware of FDR’s “Four Freedoms” and the UDHR. They deliberately chose to ignore them.

What This Means for Today

I think there are several takeaways from this reflection.

Conservatives are correct to focus on the furtherance of freedom as provided by the U.S. Constitution, but their concept of freedom is too narrow, failing to recognize the social and personal conditions so necessary for people to flourish.

As the main opposition party today, Democrats should continually call attention to the more robust understanding of freedom and human rights that was formally developed nearly 80 years ago.

Alarmingly, as of this writing, an American president has explicitly threatened the total destruction of an entire civilization. Others have pointed out that such an action could only be accomplished by using nuclear weapons—a possibility that Donald Trump has previously asked about.

This threat amounts to a threat of genocide, and the threat itself is a war crime under international law (and, therefore, under U.S. law). In my view, this situation provides overwhelming grounds for impeachment and removal from office for Donald Trump and for prosecution of complicit subordinates for war crimes.

Accordingly, Democratic leaders should remind Republicans that they, too, must act to prevent tyranny. As Goldwater pointed out, the framers of the Constitution “knew that rules of government, however brilliantly calculated to cope with the imperfect nature of man [sic], however carefully designed to avoid the pitfalls of power, would be no match for men who were determined to disregard them.”[8]

Despite my break from Goldwater’s views during my college years, I must also acknowledge that, as a Senator, he delivered the unwelcome news to Richard Nixon that Nixon would not survive an impeachment trial in the Senate because of his involvement in the Watergate fiasco.

I would like to think that Goldwater would have delivered a similar message in 2021 or now to Donald Trump. That Congressional Republicans lack such courage today is truly shameful.

NOTES”

[1] Barry M. Goldwater, Conscience of a Conservative, (Shepherdsville, KY: Victor Publishing Co., 1960), p. 9.

[2] Goldwater, p. 10.

[3] Goldwater, p. 13.

[4] Goldwater, pp. 69-99.

[5] Goldwater, p. 76.

[6] Goldwater, pp. 87-88. Italics in original.

[7] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights, https://bit.ly/3PQWElH.

[8] Goldwater, p. 15.

For ElderVibes, I try to offer reflections on current events from my personal experience over 80+ years, including many years as a professor of religious studies. This article about the ironic threat of Christian nationalism arises from those years of teaching.

The rise of Christian nationalism poses an ironic threat to the religious freedom that is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is important to understand both the threat and the irony.

The Threat of Christian Nationalism

It’s important to understand what Christian nationalism (CN) is, since its goals were embedded in several sections of Project 2025 and are now advocated by government policy makers, including leaders of the Trump regime, members of Congress, and the Republican Party. These goals include:

• Desire for traditional social hierarchy

• Commitment to strong ethno-racial boundaries regarding national identity

• Idealizing free-market capitalism

• Preference for authoritarian social control

• Embrace of populism, perceived victimhood, and conspiratorial thinking[1]

While many Christians might support greater attention to biblical principles in the formation of public policy, CN goes far beyond this, advocating for the United States to be identified as a Christian country and for overturning the First Amendment’s prohibiting the establishment of religion. Despite Christianity being the dominant religious tradition in America, there has always been much disagreement over which biblical principles deserve adherence.

For example, should government policy focus on improving conditions for the poor and socially marginalized, or should the government promote a traditional, male-dominated social hierarchy for families and society generally? There is biblical justification for either emphasis.

To take another example, many respondents to a survey agreed with the statement that “because things have gotten so far off track in this country, we need a leader who is willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right.”[2]

Such positions directly threaten the well-being of minority religious, ethnic, and social groups. When 30% of Americans (66% of evangelicals) support CN views (higher in Red states) and are more likely to support political violence, the situation is dire.[3]

Religious history of evangelical Christianity leans the other way

In particular, evangelical Christians who support CN have forgotten or never knew the history of their own religious group. The more they seek to return to “the good ole days,” the more they will discover that earlier Baptist Christians called for a complete separation of religious and civil authority.

This history extends back to the 16^th Century when a subset of Protestant Christians began to model their lives on their own, strict reading of the Bible. They noticed that infant baptism was not practiced by the early church, that baptism was administered only when an adult had confessed belief in Jesus as Lord. Therefore, they held, their own baptism as infants (as required by the Catholic and Lutheran Churches) was invalid. They began to rebaptize one another as adults. Because of this practice, they were called Anabaptists (meaning “re-baptizers”).

Because their religious practices were deemed a threat to the social order at the time, the Anabaptists were brutally tortured and executed by civil authorities. A favorite method was use of the “dunking chair,” by which an offender would be strapped to a chair on a pole, repeatedly lowered into a lake or river, and eventually drowned. A fitting “third baptism,” if you will.

Other victims were drawn and quartered on the rack—stretched by their arms and legs until their appendages separated from their torso—or burned at the stake for their heretical beliefs.

As a result, Anabaptist leaders argued repeatedly, but to no avail, for a complete separation of civil and religious authorities so that they would not be subject to a ruler’s torture and execution. The separation of powers was necessary for their survival.

During the founding of the American Republic, leading figures such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued for religious toleration and the elimination of state-established religion. Their arguments eventually led to the formulation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

In 1801, then-President Thomas Jefferson replied to a letter from Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut (a beleaguered minority in Congregationalist New England), affirming his commitment to a “wall of separation” between civil and religious authorities in matters of religious belief—a metaphor that has come to stand for the First Amendment. (Unfortunately, it is also a metaphor that has come under increasing attack by the Supreme Court during the past three decades.)

The irony here is that the history of Baptists, who comprise the majority of American evangelical Christians, amounts to a flesh-and-blood argument against the theocratic tenets of Christian nationalism. For today’s evangelicals, to work for Christian domination of civil society is a profound rejection of their ancestors’ history.

History matters. Or it should. The founders of the American Republic were well aware of the devastation caused by religious wars and the torture of those who held divergent religious beliefs. We should heed their example and work to create a pluralistic society dedicated to social justice for all.

NOTES":

[1] Andrew L. Whitehead, “Five Elements of Christian Nationalism,” Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 11 September 2025, https://kettering.org/five-elements-of-christian-nationalism/.

[2]Whitehead, “Five Elements…”

[3] PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute), “Support for Christian Nationalism in all 50 States: Findings from PRRI’s 2023 American Values Atlas, 28 February 2024, https://prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states/.

Share

Share Elder Vibes

I had just started my first year of college teaching. I looked and felt as young as my students and was utterly unprepared for the unfolding events that would haunt me to this day.

The year was 1969. The Vietnam War was escalating, and the country was trying to cope with the events of the previous year: Lyndon Johnson’s decision not to seek reelection, the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr., the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, the Democratic convention in Chicago, and the election of Richard Nixon as president.

1968—annus horribilis

1968 had been a horrible year. While in graduate school at the University of Chicago, I witnessed many events firsthand. Students were protesting the war continually. From the windows of Swift Hall, where my classes met, I could see the mayhem unfolding in the administration building next door, where protesters had occupied the president’s office and had set fire to some rooms. The campus rocked with outdoor meetings, posters, and demonstrations.

Things weren’t much quieter off campus. During the “police riot” that marred the Democratic convention in August, I was heading home from the university in my car when I was abruptly stopped by two Chicago police officers. They pulled me from the car, spread-eagled me across the hood, and frisked me roughly.

“You’re one of those liberal commies, aren’t you?” the first officer said.
“No, I’m not.”
“Well, what’s that McCarthy bumper sticker doing on your car?”
Eugene McCarthy was running for president as an anti-war candidate. I supported him.

Suddenly, things became a little rougher. With my hands cuffed behind my back, the second officer proceeded to tune up my shins with his baton. After a few minutes, the squad car’s radio crackled. Without another word, my hands were released, and both officers drove off. Compared to the demonstrators in Grant Park, I got off easy.

Share

Campus protests

In early 1969, after I received an M.A. degree and was admitted to candidacy for the Ph.D., my wife and I moved to Crawfordsville, Indiana, where I was to teach at Wabash College, my alma mater. A large proportion of students and faculty were already engaged in protest activities. Demonstrations, meetings, and teach-ins were common. I participated more actively than I had at Chicago.

One day, I found a sealed envelope in my campus mailbox. It had been placed there, not mailed through the Postal Service. Inside, a single sheet of paper held a hand-drawn image of crosshairs.

Underneath the image were these words: “These crosshairs are on the back of your neck!”

I was unnerved. Since I had graduated from Wabash after growing up and attending high school 12 miles from campus, chances were very high that someone I knew, on campus or locally, had just threatened me.

Despite the personal threat, I also faced an important moral and legal question as a faculty member: Should a student’s likelihood of being drafted influence the assignment of academic grades? A few students with low draft lottery numbers had approached faculty members to be treated leniently so they could continue in college in good standing with a B average.

This question was debated in several full faculty meetings. The final policy was that assigned grades should not be affected by a student’s military draft status. Official policy was one thing, however. A faculty member’s conscience, another.

Fortunately, none of my students asked me to alter their course grade because of their draft status. To this day, I’m not sure what I would have done in response to such a request. My mentor, who had served with the RAF during World War II, was opposed to the Vietnam War, but he offered no guidance.

Later that year, on a sunny spring day in 1970, smoke wafted into my office through the open window. When I looked outside, I saw a person sitting on the ground beside the campus clock, engulfed in flames. I rushed outside and helped two other faculty members douse the fire. The man (not associated with the college) was clearly in distress and could hardly breathe. He had third-degree burns over most of his body. While waiting for the fire department to arrive, I placed his head on my blazer. His death from self-immolation in protest against the war echoes with me today.

Share Elder Vibes

What about today?

Lately, these memories have returned to me as the U.S. finds itself in yet another war for unclear, shifting reasons—a war that threatens global stability. The stakes are high—perhaps higher now than they were during the Vietnam period. And during the past few years, campus protests, sometimes violently disruptive, erupted in opposition to the genocidal atrocities committed against the population of Gaza.

So where are the protests against the war with Iran? Why are most campuses quiet today?

I can think of three factors that might explain why universities are relatively quiet.

1. There is no military draft (yet). Students are not personally threatened with having to fight and die in a war with which they disagree.

2. Universities no longer tolerate disruptive protest as much as they once did, even a couple of years ago. Perhaps this change is due to the government’s crackdown on universities generally. But there’s also much evidence that senior administrators are feeling heat from wealthy, right-wing trustees.

3. The current threat to American democracy is much more dire and violent. In a very unstable environment, students have a lot to lose personally.

As bad as the 1960s were, I never thought, naïvely, that fundamental, democratic institutions, such as Congress and the courts, were threatened wholesale. Today, the threat to the rule of law and constitutional principles is palpable.

To counter that threat, we’re beyond campus demonstrations. Mass protests (“No Kings!” 1, 2, and 3), boycotts, general strikes, and unrelenting political opposition are now necessary. Students are welcome, but they are unlikely to be the leaders. It’s up to all of us.

Although I was born during World War II, I was too young to appreciate the significance of that conflict for my family, neighbors, and fellow citizens. Americans endured hardship and sacrificed to support the nation’s armed forces in the fight against fascism. It was a time of personal loss and great social change. Women became factory workers in large numbers to build airplanes, tanks, jeeps, and weapons. (Years later, I learned that two women from the family who lived next door worked for the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, New Mexico.)

As I grew older, veterans from that war were respected and treated as leaders in the community. Many had learned technical skills that would have otherwise been unavailable to them. One uncle learned advanced electronics while working for the Navy to improve radar. Another uncle was involved in research and development of the Norden bombsight for the U.S. Army Air Corps. Neither turned these skills into a career later. They regarded such duty as simply what was required at the time.

I tell this story about my family merely to indicate that most Americans fully supported the war effort after Congress declared war on December 8, 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor. As it turns out, that congressional declaration of war against Japan (and the one against Germany and Italy a couple of days later) was the last time that Congress ever took such action.

Americans’ Support for Military Action

Recently, The New York Times published an analysis of the lack of American support for the Iran war (gift article). Reporters Lily Boyce and Ruth Igielnik include an interesting graphic that illustrates public support for U.S. military action in the first days of international conflicts.

Data for the Vietnam War are missing because no polling was conducted during the early days of that conflict. Although the reporters indicate that about 60% of Americans did not see the Vietnam action as a mistake early on, by 1969, a majority of citizens opposed the war. This reflects typical erosion of support for conflicts as casualties and costs increase.

Interestingly, citizens’ support for World War II did not wane as the casualties from that conflict became horrendous. Several factors contributed to their unwavering support, but the congressional declaration and later oversight were clearly indicative of public opinion. Support for all other military interventions since World War II has fallen short.

Share

Declining Congressional Authority for War

Before World War II, all other military conflicts of consequence (omitting the Civil War) were conducted on the basis of a congressional declaration of war. These conflicts include the Mexican-American War (1846), the Spanish-American War (1898), and World War I (1917-18).

The following list shows the declining influence of Congress despite its clear constitutional authority to declare war.

The Significance of Congressional Authorization of War

Many historians and commentators have pointed out that the authors of the Constitution explicitly placed the authority to declare solely in the hands of Congress. The reason, which was common knowledge among my peers in high school during the 1950s, was that they had seen the disastrous effects of wars of choice that were initiated by monarchs.

War exacts a horrific cost in lives and material on all who participate in it. Dwight Eisenhower, former Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, opposed war as much as possible when he was president—the last Republican president to do so. His end-of-term declarations against war and his warning about the military-industrial complex are largely forgotten and ignored today.

Of course, observing the constitutional principle of Congress’s authority to declare war will not prevent abuse and wrongful public actions—as history has already shown. For instance, the Mexican-American War was fought largely to preserve slavery in the territory of Texas and to seize Mexican-held territory in the Southwest and California. Similarly, the Spanish-American War was instigated, although congressionally authorized, to seize control of Spanish territories and to protect the commercial interests of large sugar corporations in Cuba.

The erosion of congressional authority after World War II has not resulted in a complete abdication of a role by Congress. Presidents have cited various justifications for using military force, including United Nations Security Council resolutions, versions of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF, approved by Congress after the 9/11 attacks), and even simple funding resolutions.

The most extreme rejection of military force by Congress occurred in 1999 when President Clinton initiated an air campaign in Kosovo. He then cited our NATO commitments as the principal justification for the use of force. Despite their objections, both houses of Congress appropriated funding to support the campaign.

Share Elder Vibes

Practical Consequences of Congress’s Authority to Declare War

Insisting on congressional authorization for war is not simply a matter of legal principle. The authors of the Constitution intended it to serve as a brake on an autocratic ruler’s rush to begin a war of choice. This constitutional principle can and should have practical consequences.

First, it would provide an opportunity to inform the American public about the reasons for war, its projected costs, and its chances for success. It would also provide a path for voters to exercise a means to exact accountability later. The current regime has ignored the lack of public support for war today.

Second, congressional authority to declare war slows down the process. Of course, in case of an immediate attack or dire threat against the U.S., the AUMF provides ample authority to act without undermining the ultimate role for Congress. But slowing the rush to war gives experienced members of the State Department and Defense Department an opportunity to develop comprehensive plans and deliver informed advice to the President.

Unfortunately, the Trump regime has short-circuited or rejected all normal procedures. Both the State and Defense Departments have been purged of career officers who could have offered countervailing alternatives to war with Iran (or even Venezuela). The regime deprived itself of effective planning, and this has led to “unforeseen” consequences of widened conflict, war crimes, and severe disruption to the world’s economic stability.

Normal procedures were there for a reason—indeed, for several reasons. President Trump, however, heedlessly bullied advisors, international organizations, and long-time allies as he sought to achieve total domination. Most importantly, he has, throughout both terms of his presidency, undermined the rule of law in a narcissistic attempt to escape accountability for his actions. This is precisely what the Founders of the Republic sought to avoid when they wrote Article 1 of the Constitution.

In my opinion, earlier generations had it right. But by not continuing adhere to constitutional principle, we have lost much and have allowed military conflict to explode irrationally to the extreme detriment of the world. After Democrats regain control of Congress and, eventually, the presidency, it will take detailed planning and hard, creative work to restore constitutional government for the benefit of the American people.

Photo by DJ Paine on Unsplash

Polio

When I was 5 years old in 1947, I suffered a relatively mild case of polio. I had a high fever and felt weakness in my legs for about two weeks. My parents were extremely worried because many children in our area had come down with the disease.

My next-door neighbor and best friend, for example, had a much more severe case. She spent several months in what was called an “iron lung”—a body-length machine that helped her breathe when her diaphragm no longer worked. When she was finally able to emerge from weeks of living in the iron lung, she learned that both legs were nearly paralyzed. For the rest of our school years together, she walked only with assistance from leg braces and crutches. Later, she graduated from college, became a school principal, played golf, and led a mostly normal life. But to get there, she endured years of struggle and pain.

Polio could also afflict adults. My father’s cousin contracted polio in her late 20s. She, too, was confined to an iron lung for some years. We were very afraid that she might die. However, she did not endure paralysis in her extremities. After recovering from the acute phase of the disease, she led a mostly normal life as a mother with two children.

The paralytic form of this disease caused a lot of suffering. Fortunately, the polio virus left me with only a weakened right leg. As a child, I learned to jump off my left foot (I’m right-handed) and otherwise compensate for an unreliable right leg. When climbing a long flight of stairs or a large hill, I still feel the echoes from that virus.

Polio afflicted about 16,000 people annually during the 20^th century. It was the disease that afflicted Franklin Roosevelt as an adult and paralyzed his legs for the remainder of his life. To the relief of millions, including my family, the first polio vaccine, developed by Jonas Salk, was distributed in 1955. This vaccine, and subsequent iterations of it, have eliminated the disease in the U.S. (so far).

Share

Measles

I contracted measles when I was in the third grade. I was quite ill with a high fever and bodily rash for about 10 days. Nearly all my friends also came down with the disease. My mother, a schoolteacher, had to stay home to care for me for about two weeks. I don’t remember much else about having the measles other than the itchy rash.

Mostly, this disease was an inconvenience for my friends and me. But it turned out to be dangerous for many, with 3-4 million cases and 400-500 deaths per year. More importantly, it led to about 1,000 cases of encephalitis each year.

Measles was almost completely eradicated after the development of a vaccine in 1963 (subsequently improved in 1968).

Mumps

I contracted mumps during my first year in high school—rather late back then. Most of my friends got the mumps during their elementary school years.

Because I had the mumps so late, it turned out to be more serious for me. I was very sick for a couple of weeks. As was typical, my cheeks ballooned out, which resulted in a lot of teasing from my family. But the mumps was no laughing matter.

When contracted later, the mumps could lead to testicular inflammation (called orchitis), which can reduce fertility. This is probably why I was never able to have biological children.

The disease was very common during the 1940s and ‘50s but was virtually eradicated after a vaccine was developed in 1967.

Share

Consequences of Vaccines

The above-mentioned diseases cause extremely serious health problems for those who contract them.

For instance, measles suppresses the immune system and can lead to pneumonia, a cause of death in children at a rate of 1 in 20 cases. Measles can also lead to encephalitis, resulting in seizures, deafness, or other disabilities. These consequences can also last for years in relation to other infections.

Mumps can cause ovarian inflammation, pancreatitis, meningitis, or encephalitis—all serious complications that can be debilitating or fatal.

Rubella (relatively rare) is a mild disease that can cause arthritis (especially in women) or encephalitis. Its main threat is to pregnant women and their fetuses, leading to long-term organ damage to the liver, heart, and brain function.

These three diseases have now been nearly eradicated through the mandatory vaccination of schoolchildren with the combined MMR vaccine, which was first implemented in 1971.

With the almost total prevention of these so-called “childhood diseases,” American families no longer need to worry about the severe consequences that my family feared. But this result is possible only if everyone gets vaccinated. That’s why schools and universities have required written proof that students have received the MMR vaccine.

My question is, why would we give that up?

My parents’ generation endured exposure to several diseases that are now controlled or eliminated by widespread vaccinations. And while I contracted all childhood diseases, including polio, they disappeared from the scene by the time I became a parent.

Current health care officials now tell families that whether their children receive these vaccines is their choice. The latest official recommendation to administer vaccines voluntarily is weak. The result will be increasing outbreaks of disease and occasional deaths, as we’re already seeing for measles nationwide.

By maximizing parental freedom to withhold vaccines from their children, U.S. health authorities are putting us on a path to curtail the moral right of citizens generally to avoid illness and its complications. We should all be free to enjoy healthy lives that are not subject to the anti-scientific whims of a few.

Finally, older citizens have a personal stake in restoring the vaccination protocols of the past. We should ensure that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can remain healthy and live rich, full lives. Subjecting our descendants to disease and ill health contradicts our duty to our families and as citizens. We should fight for the future well-being of our loved ones and all Americans.

Upgrade to Paid

Photo by Vic Alcuaz on Unsplash

I’m old enough to have seen history spiral (it never repeats exactly). As a member of the Silent Generation, I recall my parents’ stories about living through the Great Depression and World War II. I personally experienced the fight for civil rights and against the Vietnam War. Today, these struggles have returned.

Fighting Fascism

During the 1930s and ‘40s, Americans grappled with two challenges. The first was for survival during the worst economic depression in American history. After the stock market crash of 1929, unemployment rates grew to 25% and higher, depending on location. There was no social safety net, such as unemployment compensation, to cushion the blow. And the Depression did not end swiftly, although spending to finance World War II did produce growth. I can still remember my grandmother providing food to transients (she called them “hobos”) when I was a youngster. She lived about two blocks from a major rail line—a conduit for unemployed, desperate men traveling to seek work.

Of course, relatives from the Greatest Generation went off to war in Europe and the Pacific Theater to fight fascism. Many did not return. My great uncle, for example, died on the Arizona during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Others from our small town were killed in Europe (see my earlier post, “Taps—1958”).

Today, masked, unidentified federal thugs are terrorizing people who are legal residents or even citizens of the United States. Some leaders of ICE or the Border Patrol sport Nazi costumes, tattoos, or symbols of the American Confederacy. Some states are passing laws to increase surveillance of their residents. Court orders prohibiting ICE from snatching people off the streets and detaining them illegally are routinely ignored. Our government is spending billions to construct concentration camps (called “detention centers”) to house those who have been rounded up.

All this is exactly the kind of lawless behavior that Americans fought against during the 1940s. The parallel between what is happening now and what happened in Germany during the 1930s is frightening. To have this struggle today in the United States is dismaying.

Share

The Struggle for Civil Rights

When I went off to college during the early 1960s, I never intended to become involved in the civil rights movement. I had grown up in a “sundown town” in Indiana, where all Black people were prohibited from remaining in the town after sundown. Of course, no persons of color were ever stupid enough to come to our town anyway.

But the college assigned me to have a Black roommate during my second year. Frank Starkey (later, a college chemistry professor) set me straight. I subsequently joined him in founding the first racially integrated fraternity on our campus. During the next decade, I participated in civil rights activities in Dallas and Chicago when I was in graduate school. Getting arrested for integrating lunch counters and registering people to vote was only part of the struggle.

Later, as a college professor and academic administrator, I worked to diversify our student body and faculty. Collaborating with Black colleagues during this time was a highlight of my career in higher education.

Now, the resurgence of white supremacy and the rise of Christian nationalism are especially disheartening. Having to fight these battles again angers me. While the civil rights movement succeeded in advancing political rights for Black people, we now see the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act and allowing Republican state legislatures to suppress Black representation again. This path, if not reversed, will lead to further social unrest and economic stagnation. A diverse society with equal rights for all under the law is the only way to fulfill the egalitarian vision of our Republic’s founders (flawed though they were).

Share Elder Vibes

Resisting War

The Vietnam War period was difficult. Through one student deferment and the luck of the lottery, I was never drafted to serve in the military. I have felt guilty about that ever since learning of the death of college classmates during that misbegotten conflict. Still, that war was conducted, as we now know, on the basis of a lie that was later accepted by Congress. The war’s conclusion was an ignominious defeat for the U.S. and an astounding loss of life and treasure. And the Vietnam War led to extreme political division within the country that festered for decades and that influenced events leading to the Iraq War of 2003, another war based on lies.

Today’s conflicts involving Iran, Venezuela, and other countries seem much more clear-cut. Unlike Lyndon Johnson and other presidents who at least obtained Congressional approval, the Trump regime has committed illegal acts of violence against other countries with no rationale, no approval from Congress, and no plan for ending the conflict. Such actions today are certainly unconstitutional (see Article I, Section 8). Their lawlessness is so blatant that the latest reports indicate that only 27% of Americans support the action against Iran.

The public attack on the rule of law, as the Trump regime continues to implement Project 2025 and flout the Constitution, leads me to urge Congressional Democrats (and those few Republicans who remain loyal to the Constitution) to immediately consider articles of impeachment for Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and the entire Cabinet. This regime is lawless, and it must be removed.

In this regard, I hope that remaining, fellow members of the Silent Generation will support the principles for which we and our parents fought in the past. The time is now.

Note from William Barnett:

This reflection begins with a confession or a witness. As a Christian with faith in a merciful and gracious God, I have no fear of death. Whatever future salvation comprises is unknown to me because I am finite and imperfect, whereas God is infinite and perfect. Our Christian faith is that God is merciful and gracious. Our faithfulness includes hope toward an unknown future that is in the hands of God. Everything good will be preserved by God, and whatever has not been good is covered by God’s mercy, grace, and forgiveness. A life guided by that faith and inspiration is the best way of life I have discovered. God created us for life.

That said, apprehension about the final stages of dying is reasonable. The end is often agonizingly painful and ugly. Fifty years ago, I visited an elderly woman in her hospital room. Her suffering from cancer was beyond the palliative effects of painkillers then available. She said to me in a soft voice, “I know that you cannot pray that I die, but I pray every day that I die.” Most of us wish for a long life and a sudden, painless death. Religious beliefs keep some of us from choosing suicide or assisted death.

A novel about the Blitz on London during WWII describes people huddled on the Underground Station platforms while detonations filled their ears and dust covered their heads. One young woman muttered, “Waiting for death is not natural.”

Hoping for a long life and more time to enjoy life is natural. Hoping for the future enables us to enjoy each new day. A different set of people who have a wealth of worldly goods live in fear that they will be taken away by others or by death.

We humans seem suspended in the air between heaven and earth, between the future and the present. We have a bit of heaven in our makeup, and we hope. We have a bit of materiality in our nature along with futility and fear. Swinging as on a pendulum from one to another, we must cope with death and dying.

Share

Our culture and religious traditions co-mingle two concepts about the stage after death. The primary way some of our Jewish ancestors conceived the continuation of an individual’s identity was through resurrection of the body. The primary way our Greek ancestors though of a person’s identity was as spirit. At death the spirit leaves the body and ascends to a spiritual realm.

When I was a lad, our neighbor’s wife came frantically to our door calling for my mother because her husband had just died. Mother went to her purse to grab her hand mirror as she hurried out the door. Why? So she could hold the mirror in front of his mouth and nose. If no evidence of breathing was present, the spirit had left the body in death. The memory calls to mind the creation story that God breathed into humans the breath of life (spirit). American funerals are replete with both resurrection of the body and an eternal spirit in unexpressed tension.

Death comes sooner or later to everyone. No one is promised life after today no matter what the actuarial tables say. However, as I am in my 90^th year, even the actuarial tables indicate that dying is coming sooner for me rather than later.

Even so, dying can be an extended process. A faculty friend had an incurable form of cancer and went periodically to the Mayo Clinic for check-ups. Upon his return to the Round Table in the Scarlet Inn for coffee with friends, I said to him, “Everyone here is at some stage of the process of death; you are unique because you get regular reports on its current status.” As elders, we experience the approach of death and dying. The question is how we are responding.

Some people have bucket lists of things they want to complete, undertake, accomplish, or experience before they die. A few gain a moment of celebrity in the media by doing crazy or outlandish things, made more notable because they are done by an old person. I don’t know about you, but my bucket list does not include skydiving out of an airplane or skiing down the most dangerous Himalayan mountain.

The question is, how are we to respond to the prospect of death and dying? No set of answers is appropriate or feasible for every person. Each one of us is unique. No other person in the world is like you with the same set of experiences that shape your identity. Moreover, our life circumstances can change quickly so that what is appropriate for me today might not be feasible or appropriate for me tomorrow.

Nevertheless, some personal reflections about how to face the uncertain future might be helpful to others. Here is how I think about an appropriate bucket list.

Share

International travel is no longer feasible. Long trips are now to visit people, especially family. Trips to visit places or things are no longer attractive.

It is wise to be as physically active as circumstances allow. Age and fragility make previously routine tasks unsafe. An ancient warning, ‘Pride goeth before a fall,’ now speaks directly to those elderly who are too proud to use a cane or walker. Falls are the reason many elders become bedridden, lose their independence, or even die. I prefer to accomplish yardwork or housework rather than just walk on a treadmill. Nevertheless, it is best to protect one’s physical health, and walking on a treadmill is relatively safe.

My wife and I are still blessed to live in our home. After commenting on a person who required assistance to do anything, I joked with my wife by saying, ‘We are in assisted living; we just don’t have any assistance.’ A woman overhearing us laughed out loud. Later, I had the insight that we have many to assist us — attentive family members, wonderful neighbors, a long list of individuals in the community, some of whom we don’t know. It enhances life to give thanks for the many people who enable us to live and live happily.

Meaningful contact with as many friends and colleagues as possible is good. For elders, they are a diminishing number. People move away, often to live close to children or grandchildren; some go into assisted living facilities; others fade away into illness or forgetfulness; too many die. Fewer people in groups or institutions around us know or value us, and some of us become elder orphans. It is important to associate as much as we can with others. Create opportunities or attend with friends whenever possible. Zoom conferences and telephone calls enable us to maintain contact with family and friends.

Associating with new members at church, new residents in retirement communities, and other new contacts is life-enhancing. One is never too old to try to establish relations with other people.

Engage in activities and cultivate things that bring purpose and meaning to life. Read, write, encourage others, and provide whatever assistance you can so individuals and the community can flourish.

In the final stage of being an elder in 2025, it is hard to be optimistic. It is not wise to stick our heads in the ground and ignore reality. Hope is possible and life-giving. Some views of life are based on a cycle of return; others are based on a version of a fall from grace and a view that the world is going to Hell in a handbasket. A wise person noted that each of us has a shadow of Eden in our hearts. It is a faith-based hope that everything will return to harmony and unity. God is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega.

Thus, we return to the beginning with a confession and a testimony. I, and many others, march on with hope without being depressed and not overwhelmed by approaching death and dying.

Leave a comment

Birthdays are a time for reflection and taking stock. Mine happens to fall on 9/11.

Twenty-four years ago, I was sitting in my office preparing to teach a college class at 10:00 a.m. when news of the catastrophe at the Twin Towers in Manhattan flashed across the Internet. When reports mentioned that the planes’ hijackers were Muslims, I knew that this would not be a normal class day.

I decided that my students should be given a chance to express how they were feeling and to consider what these horrific events meant. I also planned to make a few remarks on Islam, emphasizing that the 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide did not share the militaristic views of smaller sects. I was concerned about possible backlash against the many Muslims in the Syracuse, NY, community, including students and faculty on our campus.

A few days later, we learned that Daniel Brandhorst, his partner, Ronald Gamboa, and their 3-year-old son, David, were on American Airlines flight 175 that crashed into the South Tower. I knew Dan. At the time, he was President of the Alumni Board of Governors at Le Moyne College. The tragedy had suddenly become personal – as it was for so many that day.

In the years since, I have remembered and reflected on the significance of 9/11 for the U.S. and the world. These reflections have not been pleasant.

Beginning in 2002, with George W. Bush’s war of choice against Iraq, based on lies that had nothing to do with the events of 9/11, we found ourselves embroiled in wars that created mass death, chaos, and economic disruption until the Joe Biden’s presidency. The consequences of that mayhem remain with us today.

These years also brought increasing and unrelenting polarization of American politics that have destroyed whatever consensus about basic American rights and institutions that had been forged during the 20^th century and after personal memories of the Civil War had faded. As of now, the achievements of the Greatest Generation (of my parents) are under attack and threatened with extinction.

Did all this stem from 9/11? Not all, I think. The roots of the current political and social conflict go back further. But 9/11 became the catalyst for increasing vituperation in the national conversation. And more than 20 years of war thereafter saw increasing levels of violence.

So, today, I am more pessimistic than ever. And I regret that I might not see a resurgence of the American commitment to democracy and free debate as a way of resolving differences without violence. It’s not hyperbole to say that the elections of 2026 and 2028 – should they occur – will decide that question.

Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

Persons who are approaching age 65 should dread the end of 2025. The reason is that federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act (ACA) plan premiums are set to expire by 1 January 2026. Those who qualify for subsidized payments through ACA or Medicaid could see their premiums increase over 75% (on national average).[1]

This development could become catastrophic for many groups: young people who are beginning to live on their own, employees of small business, gig workers, and states already grappling with extreme cuts to Medicaid. But older adults are especially at risk.

Persons not eligible for Medicare until they reach age 65 could be in real trouble if they are laid off or lose employer-provided health insurance for retirees (extremely rare). As I’ve previously written, their chances of finding another job at the same level of compensation or any job at all are now very low.

Without employer-paid health insurance, most older adults lack the personal resources to pay for coverage at a non-subsidized rate. By law, ACA insurers can charge older persons three times what they charge younger folks for the same coverage. And most states lack the financial resources to continue subsidizing ACA plans at current levels. Surely, I don’t need to point out that going without health insurance at that age is extremely risky.

How Did We Get into This Mess?

The short history begins with government-imposed wage caps during World War II to control inflation. Despite a growing shortage of (male) workers, employers could not raise wages to attract new employees. So they turned to fringe benefits, especially health insurance, to recruit workers.

The IRS ruled in 1943 that employer contributions to health insurance were not taxable income for employees. Since these contributions were also a business expense, these contributions became a very important incentive. By 1952, the number of workers covered by employer-sponsored health insurance rose to 92 million.[2]

Despite attempts by several administrations, reaching all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, the U.S. has never created a centralized, universal health care system. Nearly all other industrialized nations did so during the 20^th century. But when the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was crafted, the AMA, major health insurers, and Big Pharma opposed moving in that direction.

Of course, Medicare and Medicaid are not tied to employment, but Republicans and the Trump administration are trying to impose strict work requirements on Medicaid recipients.

What Should Be Done?

First, we must recognize the size and urgency of the problem.

About 63.5 million people in the U.S. fall in the 50-64 age group.[3] Of those, approximately 43 million are employed or seeking employment as follows[4]:

Employed full-time: ~30 million
Employed part-time: ~ 6 million
Gig/self-employed: ~4.5 million
Unemployed (seeking work): ~2.4 million (6% unemployment rate)

Obviously, those employed part-time, self-employed, or unemployed (about 4% of the total U.S. population) are most at risk for reduction or loss of income. Further, almost none of these are eligible for employer-supported health insurance. They are on their own, forced to obtain minimal coverage through the ACA when they can afford the premium as determined by their state.

Hence, the first thing that must happen is for Congress to restore the federal subsidies for the ACA and funds that have been cut from Medicaid. Democratic members are on board with that, but Republicans are generally not. Some Republican House members and Senators are beginning to feel the anger of their constituents regarding such cuts. So there might be a majority in both houses for restoring some of this funding.

Even so, how likely will such congressional action (IF it occurs) survive an expected Trump veto? Unless Trump perceives that restoring the federal subsidies and other cuts is necessary to keep Republican control of the House and prevent his third impeachment, I fear that such a measure is doomed.

If, as is more likely, the cuts stand, about 7 million older folks can be expected to lose access to health insurance either through lack of employment or inability to afford skyrocketing premiums.

Looking past such misery, Democrats need to plan now for revamping the entire health care system when they regain control of the government.

Merely restoring the situation prior to Trump’s first term will be insufficient. Although the ACA provided access to health insurance for millions, it stopped far short of guaranteeing access for everyone. Premiums for ACA plans, many of which carry high deductibles, in every state have been climbing steadily to the point where many cannot afford any coverage at all.

This will not do. Even in capitalist terms, a sick society is an unproductive society. Republicans are intent on further enriching the wealthy while implementing cruel policies for the rest of us.

Therefore, it’s up to Democrats and concerned Independents to bring the U.S. into line with other economically advanced countries who provide health care to all citizens (and persons within their borders in many cases) at no or very little charge. How that can happen despite entrenched opposition from private insurers and others in the medical establishment should be a big part of the discussion prior to 2028.

I wonder how many Democratic candidates and officials are prepared to go that far.

NOTES

[1] Kaiser Family Foundation, “How Much More Would People Pay in Premiums if the ACA’s Enhanced Subsidies Expired?,” n.d., https://www.kff.org/interactive/how-much-more-would-people-pay-in-premiums-if-the-acas-enhanced-subsidies-expired/#state=&zip=&income-type=dollars&income=130%2C000&employer-coverage=0&people=2&alternate-plan-family=&adult-count=1&adults%5B0%5D%5Bage%5D=21&adults%5B0%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&child-count=0.

[2] David Rook, “A Brief History of Employer-Sponsored Healthcare (from the 1930s to now),” HUB International, 27 August 2020, https://www.griffinbenefits.com/blog/history-of-employer-sponsored-healthcare.

[3] U.S. Census Bureau, “Census Bureau Releases New U.S. Population Estimates by Age and Sex,” 10 April 2025, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/population-estimates-age-sex.html.

[4] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment status of the civilian population by age and sex,” 05 September 2025, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm.

The success of this newsletter depends on your engagement and support. Therefore, I invite you to take one or more of the following actions:

• “Like” the post by clicking on the heart (❤️) icon.

• Restack the post (with just two clicks).

• Share the post with friends or colleagues.

• Sign up for a free or paid subscription.

Subscribe now

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

As I get older, the complexity of my ife has not diminished. As I previously mentioned, deciding which health insurance plan works best for me has proved vexing. What should be a simple matter of comparing cost and benefits of various plans is not. Plans don’t match up comparatively and reliable information is hard to come by.

Nevertheless, as promised, I am now announcing that I intend to re-enroll in my Medicare Advantage (MA) plan rather than switch to original Medicare. Here’s why.

Background: For those who are just joining this conversation, I urge you to read two earlier posts on this topic: Should I Drop My Medicare Advantage Plan? and Should I Switch from Medicare Advantage to Original Medicare? Both posts provide more detailed analysis of MA and Original Medicare plans than I will include here.

Why Original Medicare Is Preferable

Original Medicare (hereafter referred to as “Medicare”) for most people is superior to MA plans for the following reasons:

• There is no in-network/out-of-network hassle to contend with. So long as a clinical provider (individual clinician or organization) participates in Medicare and accepts payment, you’re covered. Participating providers far outnumber those who decline to participate in Medicare.

• Medicare does not require prior authorization for procedures or medications, except for those that are clearly experimental or untested. If your provider recommends a procedure or medication, you will be covered under Parts A, B, and D (Part D requires separate coverage from a third party insurer).

• Under Medicare, there is no deductible amount that you must pay before coverage begins.

• Because administrative costs for Medicare are much lower than for MA plans (e.g., 6% vs. 18%), Medicare has no incentive to deny care. Medicare does not operate on a for-profit level. MA plans have a built-in incentive to deny care so that payment of claims does not exceed revenue collected. (Strikingly, MA insurance carriers refer to payment of claims as “medical cost loss.”)

• Medicare does not drop coverage for individuals no matter how sick they become. Further, Medicare patients are covered no matter where they live in the U.S.

Despite these reasons (and more), I’m not switching to Medicare at this time. With this decision, I am not following the good advice from several well-meaning readers. But I thank them very much for taking the time to help.

Why I’m Sticking with My MA Plan

The simple reason is that I cannot afford to switch to Medicare.

After receiving a more detailed quote from a broker, Supplementary Medicare Insurance (often called “Medigap”) coverage would cost me at least $5,000 per year with the possibility of increases later – an amount that I cannot afford. While such coverage is necessary to prevent possible financial ruin from the 20% of health expense that Medicare does not cover through Parts A and B, I can’t afford it. My MA plan caps what I would be required to pay out-of-pocket.

Further, I am now enrolled in an MA plan that charges nothing ($0.00) in monthly premium. (See my previous posts for an explanation of how they make money.) Since I am in good health, my out-of-pocket exposure is limited.

My MA plan also offers other benefits such as wellness programs and limited coverage for vision, hearing, and dental needs. While I finally replaced my hearing aids by using a vendor other than the one required by my MA carrier, I still need whatever vision and dental coverage my plan provides.

My plan automatically covers most prescription medications without additional Part D coverage.

Share

Why My Decision Is Not Optimal

While sticking with my MA plan is at least temporarily necessary, it’s not optimal.

· My MA carrier could cease offering the plan in my geographic area. I have no way of knowing before the enrollment period begins on October 1.

· Similarly, my carrier could drop me or a group of insured persons who meet certain health care criteria. I have no way of knowing this before it happens.

· Clinical providers who are currently in-network can, of their own volition, decide to no longer participate in my carrier’s plan. This, too, can happen at any time with no prior notice.

· My health could suddenly deteriorate and require procedures or medications that my plan would not cover without prior authorization. Prior-authorization hell is not a good place to be when you’re sick.

· Putting off switching to Medicare could make finding Medigap coverage more difficult, because of prior health screening, and expensive. (One person who commented on an earlier post indicated that their Medigap premium had risen to $11,000 per year and climbing.)

· Industry trends are beginning to show that MA plans are not driving profits as much as they once did. This might lead to changes in MA plans that would make them less attractive as an alternative to Medicare or cause carriers to discontinue them.

So, my decision, as uncertain and potentially risky as it is, boils down to what I can afford. While my situation is better when compared to that for many others who require health care, it entails the sort of risk that no one should face in a wealthy country.

The success of this newsletter depends on your engagement and support. Therefore, I invite you to take one or more of the following actions:

• “Like” the post by clicking on the heart (❤️) icon.

• Restack the post (with just two clicks).

• Share the post with friends or colleagues.

• Sign up for a free or paid subscription.

  Subscribe now

Let’s talk reverse ageism. Is it real? Absolutely—and it’s probably more common than we think.

Take my story. These days, pretty much everyone I work with is younger than I am. In my 80s now, I find myself constantly engaging with people who could technically be my grandkids. Younger clients seem to be everywhere.

We all know about ageism—older folks passed over for jobs, presumed to be clueless about technology, or spoken to with that special brand of condescension. During my younger years, I was guilty of exactly that. I viewed older colleagues as out of touch, stubbornly clinging to outdated methods. I believed (though never voiced) that they were holding us young folks back—not exactly my proudest realization.

That’s the ageism that most of us know.

Reverse ageism occurs when we older adults criticize or disrespect our younger friends, colleagues, or supervisors.

Why does this matter? Both regular and reverse ageism chip away at healthy connections between generations. Sometimes it’s about cultural gaps—think music, tech, even historical reference points. Add in the all-too-human habit of favoring your own age group over “the other,” and you end up with misunderstandings, bias, and missed opportunities.

I’ve covered before how age discrimination hurts older workers—trust me, there’s more to say there. But there’s a flip side: when older staff act superior around younger managers, things can get ugly. Tough relationships, tense offices, and sometimes fractured teams.

Older employees may think, “Hey, these youngsters don’t get it—they’re making rookie mistakes.” And, sure, sometimes that’s true. But experience isn’t always the only thing that matters. Push too hard, and you risk making your younger colleagues defensive. At worst, they might remind you who actually calls the shots—or, not so subtly, suggest your job isn’t as secure as you thought.

Ageism goes both ways, and it’s worth talking about.

Over the years, I have often worked for supervisors who are younger than I am. As I enter my 80s, this occurs constantly when dealing with clients. It now seems like everyone is younger than me.

As mentioned in previous posts, I’ve also encountered several instances of ageism, especially in hiring. And I’ve learned that age discrimination can manifest itself in many ways, including presumption of technological ignorance, condescension, and ill-mannered communication.

I recall instances during my younger years when I treated older colleagues, acquaintances, and supervisors as out-of-date, old fashioned, and feeble impediments to my success. Older faculty colleagues, in particular, appeared to me as grumpy curmudgeons whose research and teaching methods did not measure up to newer standards. I thought, but never said, that they should retire and get out of the way of us younger folks.

Why Reverse Ageism Is a Problem

Both ageism and reverse ageism represent breakdowns in intergenerational relationships. These breakdowns occur because of differences in cultural assumptions (different tastes in music, use of technology in communication, historical context, etc.) that lead younger and older folks to misunderstand one another. When the prevalent human tendency to favor one’s own group and to reject the “other” is added to the mix, explicit and unconscious bias results.

I have already written about how such miscommunication and discrimination adversely affects older people. Surely, such topics will arise again in Elder Vibes.

But when older folks adopt attitudes of superiority over younger people, bad things can happen. This is especially the case when older employees must report to younger managers.

How often have you thought that younger colleagues and supervisors make mistakes because they lack the experience that you have? You might be correct about their missteps, but their lack of experience might not be the only or most important factor.

If you insist that your experience points toward a different course of action, your younger colleague might become defensive and remind you of their superior authority in your organization—even to the point of hinting that you are endangering your continued employment.

Beyond your personal situation, reverse ageism can impede your company’s or organization’s success. The breakdown in communication between you and your younger colleague means that your experience and point of view will not be taken into account. Your bias might provoke retaliatory bias, creating a lose-lose result.

What Can Older Folks Do?

There are several actions that older people can take to prevent the breakdown of communication with younger colleagues and supervisors.

1. Remember that you were once young. When you lacked experience, things didn’t always go smoothly. You might have been enthusiastic and committed to improving how things were done, but you also expected older colleagues to cut you some slack.

2. Understand that younger colleagues might feel insecure. Insecurity breeds defensive arrogance. When you speak or act in a way that exposes their insecurity or lack of experience, younger supervisors can easily become overbearing and authoritarian in reaction.

3. Focus on professionalism. Differences of opinion might well arise from different methods of calculation or different data that are being considered. Avoid presuming that such divergent opinions arise from generational characteristics.

4. Communicate as one professional to another. Admit that your point of view might be incomplete or wrong. Express support for your younger colleague’s effort to make things better. Focus on data, methods of analysis, and common goals. Don’t presume that younger supervisors are acting in bad faith.

5. Stay on board with your team. If your position does not prevail, support the final decision to the best of your ability even if you (privately) continue to disagree.

Personal Note: Whenever I first met with a new supervisor, I assured them of three things: (1) I would try to provide them with the best advice that I could. (2) If they reached a decision contrary to my advice, I would publicly support and try to implement it. (3) If they made a decision or acted in a way that I considered significantly wrong, unethical, or illegal, I would resign. Such assurances usually provoked a sigh of relief.

What Can Younger Folks Do?

Especially in the workplace, younger colleagues or supervisors can do several things that improve communication and relationships with older colleagues.

1. Remember that you, too, will become old. Becoming older is a gradual process. You will not wake up one day and exclaim, “I’m old!” Rather, as you age, you’ll notice that others begin to treat you differently, as no longer a member of the cool in-group. The question is not whether you will become old, but how.

2. Pay attention to your older colleagues’ experience and skills. Sure, there are significant cultural differences between generations. You might be active on social media while older employees like to read. But they might have long experience in your sector or organization that can be useful to you. They also might have useful skills (e.g., in written communications) that could help you achieve your goals.

3. Acknowledge older workers’ achievements and contributions. In meetings, ask older colleagues for their advice about a way forward. Without being condescending, make sure that they have an opportunity to express their views. When they excel on a particular project, make sure that others know about their contribution.

4. Keep the communication pipeline open. If older workers prefer in-person meetings or one-to-one methods of communication, try to accommodate them. After all, you should aim to learn what they’re thinking without forcing them to become Tik-Tok influencers.

5. Learn what older colleagues’ goals and aspirations are. Which challenges in life do they face? How are they coping with financial or health worries? What can you do to help them succeed at work and in their lives?

Personal Note: I once reported to a younger dean who was admittedly skeptical about whether I had the skills and stamina to succeed in my role. After several in-person discussions, I was able to convince her that I was up to the job. As the months passed, she became more comfortable asking me informally for my advice, even to the point where she invited me to edit her public presentations before delivering them. We never became friends, but we treated one another with respect. That was enough.

Thanks for reading Elder Vibes! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Prospects for Improvement

I firmly believe that conscious efforts to improve intergenerational communication in both directions can make the workplace and personal relationships better.

My spouse and I are a walking communications laboratory. She is much younger than I. When we both get together with her friends, I am often the oldest person in the room. If I make an effort to engage with younger people on terms with which they’re comfortable—usually by asking them about their lives, successes, or challenges—things go more smoothly. Playing the role of the curmudgeon in the corner simply won’t work.

Correlatively, when we are with a group of my friends, my spouse is often the youngest person in the room. After my generational peers get to know her for the warm, educated, humorous, and serious person that she is, they usually become more interested in her than in me.

Still, better communication has its limits. Not all challenges can be fixed. If you are supervised by someone with a narcissistic personality disorder who bullies you because you are older (or younger!), you might face some difficult choices. Should you continue in a toxic work environment? Or should you risk leaving for a different position or retiring? We’ll address some of these questions later.

For now, do what you can to engage younger persons in ways that help them to reciprocate. Stick up for yourself and your ideas, but curb your tendency to be overbearing or threatening. Getting along with folks outside your own age group takes work, self-reflection, and empathy.

If you’ve seen or experienced instances of reverse ageism, what do you think? Comments are open to all.

The success of this newsletter depends on your engagement and support. Therefore, I invite you to take one or more of the following actions:

• “Like” the post by clicking on the heart (❤️) icon.

• Restack the post (with just two clicks).

• Share the post with friends or colleagues.

• Sign up for a free or paid (preferred) subscription (best alternative!).

Upgrade to Paid