It was a big deal in the United States when we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Among the many arguments in favor of such a change was that 18 year old citizens could join the army, fight for their country, get a driver’s license, get married, and generally perform all sorts of other social functions that we normally associated with adulthood.

But today, citizens under 18 still aren’t allowed to vote — even though, under various various restrictions, we do allow them to get married (perhaps with parental consent), enlist in the armed services (ditto), drive a car (ditto), and various other “grown-up” social functions. And if they commit a crime, they may or may not be treated as an adult at some age younger than 18.

But here’s an interesting question: is it really fair to allow an election to have a potentially enormous impact on the fate of citizens under 18, when we don’t even allow them to express an opinion on the issues? Okay, granted, a 5 year old kid probably has no idea what elections are all about; but I’ll bet there are a lot of 14, 15, and 16 year old kids who know a lot more about current issues and candidates than their parents and grandparents…

… which focuses our attention on the other end of the age spectrum: why do we allow a 75 year old citizen to vote for or against candidates whose decisions could affect the lives of citizens for 20-30 years into the future, even when it’s reasonably certain that those 75 year old citizens won’t be around to suffer the consequences? Even someone who’s a sprightly young age of 65 might be somewhat “suspect”: they’re likely to be far more concerned about the short-term issues of Medicare and Social Security, for example, than the longer-term issues of global warming, pollution, and whatever else is likely to impact the future of our grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren.

It’s fairly well accepted that young people should be given a “gradual” access to the rights that they’ll eventually enjoy as full adults; the most familiar example of that is the “learner’s permit” form of driver’s license that restricts 6 year old kids to driving with a grownup after dark. And in a similar vein, we might imagine some kind of “civic literacy” test to help determine whether kids under the age of 18 should be entrusted to vote in local, state, and federal elections.

But if we do that, I think we should have equivalent tests for older people … and before you begin to squawk about that, let me point out that I’m 63 years old at the moment, and assume that such a test would be imposed upon me, too. Aside from identifying cases of senility or Ahlzeimer’s, I don’t know how such a test could be carried out fairly and equitably. And maybe it violates some basic, fundamental concept of democracy … I don’t know.

But I’ll tell you this: older people (like me) don’t have much of a future to look forward to, and it’s almost inevitable that they’re going to spend much of their time thinking about (and longing for) the past. Meanwhile, younger people have very little past to cherish (and, indeed, much of it was unpleasant, and something they’d prefer not to focus on), and virtually their entire life is based on their hopes, aspirations, and dreams of the future.

And in an election campaign that presents the electorate with a stark choice between the past (e.g., resurrecting the policies of dead white men like Ronald Reagan) and the future (imagining what life might be like if the nation could reach consensus on a long list of serious problems facing us in the next 20-30 years), that could turn out to be important.

If this really does turn into an election about past-vs-future, I don’t see why a crotchety old fart of 85 should necessarily have any more of a voice in the outcome than a feisty, hip, Internet-connected kid of 16. Regardless of who you think might be wiser, more mature, more serious, or more informed, the reality is that the 16 year old kid is going to suffer the consequences of this next election for the rest of his life. And the 85 year old senior-citizen has already lived all of his life, and deserves only the reassurance that his final few years on this planet will be lived in a state of relative comfort and dignity. If you deny the 16 year old kid any say in the outcome, then by rights, you should also deny the 85 year old any say in an outcome that he won’t be around to experience.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it — unless anyone has any good arguments to the contrary …