60 should be HARD limit for any politician (including scotus)
"In 1953, during his second stint as prime minister, Winston Churchill had a stroke after dinner. “No one seemed alarmed by [his] slurred speech and unsteadiness on his feet, one of the advantages of having a reputation for enjoying alcohol,” writes Andrew Roberts, a historian. For several weeks, as Churchill was incapable of governing, his son-in-law and private secretary in effect ran the country. He never fully recovered, yet refused to stand down until 1955, when he was 80. " https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/07/03/senility-in-hi...
Picasso's output in his last 20 years is not considered in the same way as his previous work.
If the plan is to reduce the reach of Washington to Virginia and DC then Churchill would be a great choice of leader and if that is the explicit goal then ok sure. If the plan is to maintain a peaceful status quo as a powerful and successful country people like Churchill in the leadership are a very bad sign indeed.
You have to assume the UK had no power to influence its internal or world affairs to conclude that its political class were competent through the last century. Which is a crazy stance given where they were in the early 1900s.
When their empire was then faltering aftet world war ii, they then let them go. They set them up to be independent and had peaceful transfers of power instead of bloody civil wars like France and Portugal did. They didnt do it perfect. But they gave them independence, in democracies, with books of laws, and set them up in international organizations.
Britain took the losing hand and tried to set up a situation that a rules based world order could thrive in, and churchill was amongst the men in charge for that.
Let's not go that far. They joined the war because of literal decades of politicking done beforehand in order to secure an alliance with France and Russia. Germany wanted more prestige, more colonies and a Navy. Britain, being the preeminent colonial and naval power, would prefer that didn't happen.
Your view on if the allies were justified in wanting to contain the ambitions of Germany probably depends on if you see Germany as justified in wanting a bigger slice of the pie that the other powers of the time were currently taking up, or if you see Germany as a buffoon that upset the existing balance of power for selfish reasons. But Britain entering into those alliances made conflict inevitable, and I find it hard to see any selflessness in desiring or preserving empire. They all paid dearly in the end.
Had to double check the dates on Churchill - very impressive
- started her first charity/hospice in India at 40 years old
- real expansion of her work started after 60 years old
- received a Nobel Prize at 69
- brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine at 72
- continued working until death at 87
Not sure what is the solution, but if people say they would prefer younger "options" and they don't materialize on the ballots, that is a sign that the system does not work as intended.