Old
What accounts for the near-universal squeamishness that surrounds the term ?
In a few days time, I'll be lining up in the 65-69 category for the Mooloolaba Olympic triathlon (1500m swim, 40km cycle, 10km run)[1]. People in this age category are commonly described as "aging", "older", "seniors", "elders" and, worst of all, "elderly" (though this mostly kicks in at 70). The one thing we are never called is "old". But this is the only term that makes any sense. Everyone is aging, one year at a time, and a toddler is older than a baby. “Senior” makes sense only as the alternative to “junior”. And "elderly" routinely implies "frail" (a lot of old people are frail, but many more are not.
ChatGPT response when asked to draw an elderly woman
What accounts for the near-universal squeamishness that surrounds the term "old"? Apart from the obvious fact that you are a bit closer to death, it's not that bad being old. Even if not everyone can complete a triathlon, most people maintain (self-assessed) good health <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/older-people/older-australians/contents/health/health-status-and-functioning">to age 85 and beyond</a>, In most developed countries, old people can live a reasonably comfortable life without having to work. And on average, that's reflected in measures of happiness.
Yet, at least in the Anglosphere, old people don't seem to be happy in political terms. It's voters over 65 who provide the core support for conservative parties and are most likely to welcome the drift to the far right represented by Trump and his imitators.
The pattern is particularly striking in the UK where the YouGov poll shows the right and far-right leading easily among voters over 65 (37% Tory + 28 % Reform), while gaining essentially no votes from those aged 20-24, where the Tories tie for 5th place with the SNP, behind Labor, Green, Reform and LibDems https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48794-voting-intention-con-20-lab-46-28-29-feb-2024 [2].Presumably that reflects Brexit, a particularly irresponsible piece of nostalgia politics inflicted mostly by the old on the young.
But it's the same in the US, Canada, Australia and (though mainly among women) New Zealand. While there has always been a tendency for old people to support the political right, it's more marked now than it has ever been. And as is particularly evident with MAGA, there's nothing conservative about this kind of politics. Its primary mode is authoritarian Christian nationalism.
In part, I think this reflects the increasing dominance of culture war issues, where views that were dominant 50 or 60 years ago are now considered unacceptable. Old people whose views haven't changed in many years are likely to support the right on these issues.
I'd be interested in any thoughts on this.
fn1. Not expecting to do well, thanks to the hottest and stickiest summer I can remember, but I plan to finish.
fn2. A poll last year had the Tories on 1 per cent among young voters.
Completed the Tri in 3:14, my best time for some years
If the political left/right axis comes increasingly to be defined by cultural values, with the left being the side that embraces and drives cultural change and the right being the side that refuses and resists it, we would expect this to strengthen the alignment between older people who find the cultural values they grew up with being marginalised and the political side that resists this process, and the alignment of younger people whose cultural values are on the rise with the political side that is driving this.
Insofar as higher levels of formal education align with greater receptiveness to cultural change, this would strengthen the tendency described above due to higher levels of formal educational attainment among younger generations.
Of course it is far from clear to me that the left should define itself *primarily* as the cultural change camp ahead of being the economic and social egalitarianism camp, or the strong sustainability camp.