Turns out that notwithstanding the title of their widely praised 2007 neo-Western – “No Country for Old Men” – the filmmakers got it wrong.* There are lots of countries for old men! Lots of countries for men who are not just old but who have great power. Presidents and prime ministers who run the show without many or even any to challenge or second guess them.
This post was prompted by a piece in the Financial Times by Janan Ganesh titled, “The World is Run by Old Men in a Hurry.”* Ganesh’s point was that age, instead of serving as a deterrent, serves as an accelerant. Instead of leaders who are old being more careful and cautious, they are leaders in a hurry. He writes: “The problem with aged leaders is not their health…but their incentives. As well as not having much time to leave a mark, they won’t have decades of retirement in which to suffer the … penalties of any disastrous act committed in office.”
Ganesh points out that more than half of the world’s population and much of its land area and military might are in the hands of men who are older than Ronald Reagan when he first became president. (He was 69.) These men include China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, India’s Narendra Modi, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey), Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and of course the American near-octogenarian, Donald Trump.
I like that Ganesh turns the conventional wisdom on its head. Which is that instead of doddering, shuffling along, these leaders are determined, rushing to get things done. (Watch it, Taiwan!) But he does not take on the big question. Why is it that leaders like these, leaders who are old in an era when most of the world’s population is young – the global median age is under 31 – not only get into positions of power but stay in positions of power? (Putin and Erdogan have been glued to their seats for over two decades; Xi and Modi for over one.)
To an extent the answer is systemic. Most leadership systems favor those familiar with them precisely because they have been around for years. But in a time defined above all by galloping advances in technology, it’s worth noting how we are led by leaders who might know many things, but technology is hardly ever among them. If in five- or ten-years we wake to a place near unrecognizable or even near uninhabitable, it will be because for most of the first half of the 21st century we have been led largely by men who have no conception of the capability of technology. The average age of a U.S. senator is 64. The CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, is 40.
In many if not most autocracies followers have few options. Changing the leadership class in Russia or China, even in a less autocratic country such as Turkey, is heavy lifting. But what’s our excuse? How did it come to pass that America’s previous president was so frail he was finally forced to withdraw from running a second time? And how did it come to pass that the country’s present president is twice as old as his average constituent?
Again, in part the answer is systemic. But in part it is not. In part it is because in the United States public service is poorly rewarded. It is poorly rewarded professionally, politically, personally, and financially. Being a public servant – becoming a public sector leader – used to have several compensations. Now it has far fewer – and they are harder to come by. So young people are turned off while old people, old men, continue to rule our roost.
——————————————————————
*The filmmakers are Joel and Ethan Cohen.
** https://www.ft.com/content/1d41a591-940d-4936-b79f-4c7857138903