A 'Kent State Moment'—When Power Gaslights What We Can all See With Our Own Eyes, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

 A 'Kent State Moment'—When Power Gaslights What We Can all See With Our Own Eyes

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

January 10, 2026

There are moments in this nation’s history when what the powerful say is so transparently opposed to what any reasonable person can see—with their own eyes, with their own conscience—that we must call it what it is.

This is one of those moments.

Renee Nicole Good should still be alive.

Renee Nicole Good

She was a 37-year-old mother and an award-winning poet, driving with her
partner shortly after dropping off her child at school in Minneapolis when an ICE agent fired—killing her (Bjornson, 2026). 

Video footage and eyewitness accounts suggest she was not charging anyone, not wielding a weapon, not threatening lethal harm. Instead, the footage shows a woman who moments before being shot said, “I’m not mad at you,” revealing a human being clinging to peace even as violence unfolded.

Accordingly, I encourage you to see the video from the perspective of the ICE agents posted by The Guardian to witness a peaceful Renee Good with one of the two cops who then calls her a "f-ing bitch" right before she was shot in the face one or more times and summarily killed (Vargas, 2026).

But instead of truth, we are being offered something far worse: denial dressed up as an official story. How deeply offensive.

Kristi Noem

In the hours and days after Renee’s death, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance rushed forward with sharp, self-serving narratives about self-defense and “domestic terrorism.” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem issued a premature, a priori conclusion—declaring Renee a threat before facts, investigations, or even basic accountability have been offered. 

And what's with the get-up? Wearing an over-sized cowboy hat worn for a photo op, jarringly out of step with the gravity of the moment. Even her eyes were hidden—mirroring masked ICE agents whose anonymity shields their violence from accountability.

This is not leadership. This is gaslighting.

Gaslighting isn’t merely lying. It is attempting to make the public distrust its own senses—its own basic moral compass. It insists that what feels wrong, what looks wrong, and what is wrong is somehow righteous, necessary, inevitable—or something else altogether.

This is why this moment feels like a Kent State moment.

Kent State was not only the killing of four students by the National Guard in 1970. It was the lie that followed—the attempt to justify lethal state force against unarmed youth, and then to sanitize that violence into a narrative of necessity. Despite photographs, witnesses, and tears, officials tried to tell the nation that nothing extraordinary had happened—that the pain we saw was a distortion. The lie was worse than the bullets. It asked us to turn away from what history later confirmed was inescapably undeniable.

Because what followed Kent State wasn’t just outrage. It was a breaking point in how Americans saw state power and the stories told to protect it.

That is why I am calling this a Kent State moment.

And I am not alone (e.g., OB Rag, 2026).

What makes this moment especially eerie—almost unbearable in its symmetry—is geography itself. According to The Associated Press, Renee Good was killed about a mile from where Minneapolis police murdered George Floyd in 2020. One mile. Close enough that the memory of that pavement, that breath, that collective trauma still lingers in the city’s air. The distance is short, but the connection is vast—linking the two deaths in public memory as reminders of how easily state violence reappears, even after national reckoning, including promises of reform.

Here at home in Washington, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, herself moved to tears, did what true representatives are supposed to do: she named the human pain this incident has caused and asked those on the other side of the aisle to show something called humanity—to care about a mother who lost her life, a family shattered, and a community outraged. Crockett’s voice broke as she asked: Where is the decency? The courage? The basic heart to acknowledge a life lost, rather than rush to defend federal force?

Her tears were not performative. They were painfully real—so honest they undid me. They became a moral mirror, exposing a political body far more concerned with controlling its story than confronting the searing truth of a mother’s death and a child left orphaned.

And that is the real tragedy here.

Because this was not an abstract policy clash. This was a human being—a wife, a mother, a friend, a neighbor—whose last moments were recorded not as an act of aggression, but as a cry for peace and connection. Her partner’s anguished pain—chasing the car, saying “They shot my wife”—is etched into the conscience of any American who has ever lost someone they loved.

And yet the strongest responses from the federal stage have been attempts to reframe reality instead of confronting it.

To repeat, this is gaslighting. They are telling us what to see, even as the evidence screams otherwise. Power is demanding obedience to a lie.

That is why we must say, clearly: We see what happened. We see the video. We see the pain. We refuse to let a political narrative overwrite what is unmistakably evident.

A Kent State moment is not just a historical comparison. It is a wake-up call. It is a moment of moral reckoning when the state’s attempt to redefine reality collides with the undeniable truth that humans can see with their own eyes and feel in their own hearts.

We should not let this go quietly.

Renee Nicole Good deserves more than euphemism or spin. Her family deserves honesty. And the American public deserves leaders willing to name what is true rather than protect a narrative that defies what we all can plainly see.

This is not just politics. This is conscience.

And we should not pretend it is anything less.

References

Associated Press. (2026, January 7). ICE officer kills a Minneapolis driver in a deadly start to Trump’s latest immigration operation. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-immigration-enforcement-shooting-crackdown-surge-173e00fa7388054e98c3b5b9417c1e5a

Bjornson, G. (2026, January 8). Renee Good had just dropped 6-year-old off at school when she encountered ICE. Soon her partner was crying, “They just shot my wife.” People. https://people.com/renee-good-dropped-6-year-old-off-at-school-before-ice-encounter-11881867

OB Rag. (2026, January 8). ICE agent who killed Renee Good needs to be identified, arrested and brought to trial for murder. OB Rag. https://obrag.org/2026/01/ice-agent-who-killed-renee-good-needs-to-be-identified-arrested-and-brought-to-trial-for-murder/

Vargas, R. A. (2026, January 9). Renee Nicole Good said ‘I’m not mad at you’ before ICE agent shot her, video shows. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/09/ice-agent-minneapolis-bodycam-footage

West, A., & Fiorillo, C. (2026, January). Kristi Noem hides face under massive ‘stupid’ cowboy hat as she gives update on ICE shooting. MSN. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/kristi-noem-hides-face-under-massive-stupid-cowboy-hat-as-she-gives-update-on-ice-shooting/ar-AA1TXHXU

Our Line in the Sand: A Texas Rebellion Against Sin Vergüenza Politics by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Our Line in the Sand: A Texas Rebellion Against Sin Vergüenza Politics 

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Astonishingly, there was no proposed, new Congressional map to weigh in on, no way to officially register support or opposition—at yesterday's sham hearing on Congressional redistricting. But that didn’t stop community members from showing up in force—and on short notice. All of this was set in motion by a Trump administration letter from the Department of Justice, seeking to use our state to add new members to the U.S. Congress based on 2020 U.S. Census numbers that are wholly accounted for by the phenomenal growth of the Hispanic/Latino population in Texas—measured in terms of bodies and not citizenry. There is so much detail to this, but the overall impact of what Trump and Abbott are trying to do is to disenfranchise both Black and Brown communities. Again. 

Here is a helpful write-up by authored by Klibanoff (2025) in the Texas Tribune titled Texans, Democrats condemn GOP redistricting plans at first public hearing, which gives you more context.

Gabriel Rosales, Gary Bledsoe, Angela
Valenzuela & Alicia Perez-Hodge

I was deeply honored to be on a panel with NAACP President Gary Bledsoe, LULAC State Director Gabriel Rosales, and LULAC Education Committee co-chair, Alicia Perez-Hodge, and myself. 

We all did a great job, but President Bledsoe was an incredible resource witness. I'll be posting his testimony soon, as well. However, you can scroll to the bottom to view the entire hearing for yourselves. Texans, as a whole, were very well spoken and profoundly concerned, if not anguished.

It was great having three members from Congress with us, namely, Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, Congressman Gregory Casar, and Congressman Joaquin Castro, who spoke on just how wrongheaded this is for Trump meddling in Texas politics so that he can tip the vote in his favor in what he rightly sees as a serious forthcoming midterm election.

Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, Congressman Greg Casar, and Congressman Joaquin Castro - Redistricting hearing, July 24, 2025 

Without a doubt, yesterday was a powerful day for our community—a collective and resounding Texas-style rebuke of Governor Greg Abbott. Yet, whether the House Republican leadership is truly listening remains an open question—and frankly, not an encouraging one, given their track record.

As I’ve said before, cramming mid-decade redistricting, flood response, and a host of other contentious priorities into a 30-day special session is not just bad governance—it’s terrible optics (Abbott, 2025). Sin vergüenza, as we say in Spanish—a phrase far stronger than its English cognate, "shameless." And yes, we should all be that concerned.

This is a major story with deep national and international implications.

Greg Casar & me

 I’ll continue to post updates as this special session unfolds. To wit, this evening at 6:30 at the Delco Center, there is going to be a major rally this PM featuring Beto O'Rourke, Jasmine Crockett, Gina Hinojosa, James Talarico, Gene Wu, and others to rally against this agenda to disenfranchise even further our Black and Brown communities.

In my testimony, I urged legislators to reject the path of unos sin vergüenzas and to instead choose self-respect. I venture to say that some of the legislators even blushed. Many people offered similar testimony. The state needs to prioritize the public good over political gamesmanship, and to center the welfare of the people they were elected to serve.

Dr. Angela Valenzuela, Co-Chair,
LULAC Higher Ed Task Force testifies in opposition to redistricting

Gratitude to Texas Impact for posting my testimony. I post a link to the entire session hearing below, including a follow-up People's Hearing sponsored by House Democrats at the end of this post for those who unfortunately did not get a chance to voice their opinions. Altogether, this is a great record not just of how we in Texas, on very short notice, are protesting this further rigging of the process to consolidate Republican power at the expense of the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and democracy itself.

To our youth who may be feeling discouraged: Please stay involved. I know these are heavy times. We are standing at a crossroads—indeed, in a moment of deep crisis and collective sorrow in the wake of the devastating floods in Central Texas.

But I say this with love and clarity: democracy is not a finished product. It is always in motion, always under construction. And every generation must reimagine and work to strengthen it for themselves. That is where we are right now—with history pressing in, and the future asking something of us.

You matter. Your voice matters. And we need you more than ever.

References

Abbott, G. (2025, July 9). Governor Abbott announces special session agenda [Press release]. Office of the Governor of Texas. https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-special-session-agenda-

Klibanoff, E. (2025, July 24). Texans, Democrats condemn GOP redistricting plans at first public hearing, Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/24/texas-redistricting-hearing-house-legislature-congress/

Texas Impact (2025, July 14). Texas Impact [YouTube] https://www.youtube.com/@texasimpact

Congressman Joaquin Castro & me

Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia & me

Exposing the Backlash in Forward Kentucky: Kimberly Kennedy on the White Supremacist Roots and Real Costs of Anti-DEI Legislation

Friends,

In her powerful two-part series for Forward Kentucky, former multicultural educator Kimberly Kennedy offers a searing and well-informed critique of the anti-DEI movement that has taken root in Kentucky and across the nation. She begins by methodically dismantling the false narratives being circulated by legislators—debunking myths about tuition hikes, so-called liberal indoctrination, and the alleged divisiveness of DEI efforts. 

Drawing from her own experiences, Kennedy defends DEI not as a partisan agenda, but as a basic commitment to equity, accurate historical education, and democratic learning spaces where all students belong. 

In the second installment also posted below, she courageously connects the dots between this wave of legislation and its origins in white nationalist ideology—naming institutions like the Claremont Institute that are engineering this backlash and feeding ready-made bills to lawmakers in conservative strongholds, including Kentucky and Texas.

Like what we’ve seen with Texas’ SB 17, Kennedy makes clear that these measures are not about cost-savings or academic integrity—they are about narrative control and cultural erasure. 

The ultimate harm isn’t just the silencing of marginalized communities or the gutting of student support systems; it’s the long-term degradation of our public universities and our democratic capacity as a society. Kennedy’s work is both a warning and a moral call to action: to defend truth-telling in education, to resist the rollback of civil rights gains, and to reject the normalization of white supremacist logic under the guise of “neutral” policy.

I wholeheartedly agree that the white supremacist vision for America is not only

dangerous but utterly obsolete—out of step with the multiracial, multiethnic, and gender-diverse pluralist democracy we are poised to become. I urge everyone to listen to this powerful conversation on Red, Wine, and Blue featuring Jasmine Crockett and Heather Cox Richardson. Among many important insights, they emphasize the urgency of civic engagement and call on everyday Americans to consider running for office, especially in this moment of constitutional crisis, as Representative Crockett compellingly argues.

Sí se puede! Yes we can!

-Angela Valenzuela


What anti-DEI politicos get wrong. Part 1 – the myths

The attacks on DEI programs come from a base of half-truths, mis-truths, and outright lies. In this two-part series, Kimberly Kennedy lays out what our politicians get wrong about DEI.


Kimberly Kennedy, February 22, 2024




As a former multicultural educator, my antenna went up when I heard about anti-DEI legislation proposed in Kentucky: SB 93 for K-12, plus SB 6 and HB 9 for higher education. In short, DEI refers to programs addressing Diversity (people from the rainbow of sub-cultures), Equity (fairness, equal opportunity, and justice), and Inclusion (belonging and feeling valued). As I look at each of these concepts, I can’t imagine having a problem with any of them. So I set out to investigate the objections, and here’s what I found. (Although I focus primarily upon higher education, many of the principles apply to K–12 as well.) Kentucky legislators were heard repeating the following myths:

Myth: DEI programs raise the cost of tuition.

First, tuition is set by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. Their web site illuminates the issue well: “[S]tate cuts to higher education over the last decade have shifted a larger portion of college costs to students and their families.”

Further, tuition cost is impacted by a multitude of factors, like increased operating costs and a shift in the burden of higher costs to families, who are encouraged to take on student-loan debt. There are also capital projects, including facilities to accommodate increased student population, as well as increased research and program offerings (including DEI), which respond to the needs of a changing society and technological advancements and make Kentucky’s universities competitive.

Naturally, there is an interest in faculty salaries. At the University of Kentucky, for example, top salaries are not for DEI employees, but for top administrators and athletic coaches, ranging from $400K to $1.7Mil. Salaries for DEI faculty range from $50–105K, with a few outliers being more — but still below $400K. Most importantly, all staff appear to wear multiple hats, with their DEI role being one. This suggests that cutting DEI programs may have little if any impact on faculty and salaries, thus little effect on tuition cost.

Myth: Public universities are bastions of liberal indoctrination.

Although this makes a great conservative rallying point, this assumption has been debunked by research. As conservative Matthew Woessner of Penn State observes, “[Our] results do not paint a picture of conservative students under siege.”

One explanation for this myth stems from the erroneous idea that the term “liberal” in Liberal Arts Education means the same as the word “liberal” which is opposite from a “conservative” political ideology, and thus should be attacked. But “liberal” in academia comes from the Latin “liberalis,” which means “relating to freedom,” as in thought.

This myth also assumes that 1) all professors are progressive, and 2) aren’t “professional[s] capable of divorcing their own political ideologies from their work,” says Dr. Kelly Wilz, University of Wisconsin professor.

Most important, it doesn’t accurately reflect what occurs in a classroom. (Perhaps some legislators should revisit one.) Educators present information and then, as Dr. Wilz explains, “get [students] to think critically ... not ... tell them what to think. My job is to teach them to question the validity of sources, to learn how to conduct research, and ... to question authority, even if that ‘authority’ is me.”

And what about the students? Dr. Wilz asserts, “[This] presumes that students are so gullible and incapable of free thought, professors can shape their minds.”

Myth: DEI stifles free speech.

Dr. Wilz articulates that, in a classroom, all voices are welcome – but not all ideas have merit. Students are expected to defend their positions with evidence; if they cannot, they may sense pushback from other students “because they have not survived the challenge of scrutiny. The resistance I see is from people who can’t take that scrutiny and who can’t defend their ideas,” she says.

That is Democracy with a capital “D” in action.

In contrast, anti-DEI legislation threatens to illegalize a wide swath of speech in favor of a conservative worldview – hardly democratic. Legislators can’t claim to support Free Speech while banning speech they disagree with.

“Legislators can’t claim to support Free Speech while banning speech they disagree with.”

– from the comments

Myth: DEI programs cause division.

The argument here is that diversity programs focus upon our differences and thus divide us, sometimes causing reverse discrimination of white heteronormatives. But there is not substantive evidence of this – just a boatload of conservative rhetoric plus an anecdote here and there.

In fact, a 2023 Pew research poll of employees in a traditional work environment found that 56% felt DEI initiatives were a good thing – not divisive.

My experience has also been completely opposite of the myth. People who learn about cultural differences experience empathy, which produces insights and better understanding of the sub-group, thus leading to respect and improved relationships. Think about how you respond differently to a person on the autism spectrum once you learn more about it.

The most basic form of Diversity Training (DT) is teaching an accurate, unvarnished history of American sub-cultures. Kathryn Wiley, a white professor from Howard University, eloquently explains her reaction to learning a more detailed African-American history: “[M]y entire understanding of this country changed. ... I gained significant respect and reverence for communities of color. ... It made me more committed to our democratic ideals and to building community. ... It made me feel a healthy sense of responsibility to those different from myself.” Wiley indicates that if others could have this experience, they would have a renewed sense of civic responsibility.

Which brings me to Rebekah Keith, the white UK student who gave testimony to the legislature about feeling discriminated against: Her testimony was remarkable evidence of the need for DT; for had she experienced it, she would likely be able to demonstrate the insights and understanding necessary for the job that requires “relatability to non-whites.”

In conclusion: Legislators, where is your evidence of harm caused by DEI? (A handful of anecdotes does not a pattern make.)
Looking ahead: the broader white supremacist conspiracy



Many conservatives have bought into the anti-DEI rhetoric popularized via conservative media outlets without realizing its origins in white supremacist ideology. I’ll examine that in the next installment.

----------------------------------Continue with Part 2 here------------------------------

Biden's Age Means Wisdom, but Ageism is a Force to Contend With, Salon.com

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett with Inside Texas Politics

Friends,

Read this in tandem with listening to Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett's interview in Inside Texas Politics.

Inside Texas Politics | Full interview with Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett


The brilliant Congresswoman represents Texas' 30th congressional district that covers large parts of Dallas, Texas.

I like how she speaks to the democratic party's fear of its own shadow and how she reminds us that it's not just Biden running for office, but that it's a ticket. Post-debate responses were disproportionate. Ageism is definitely an issue. It surely factored into Biden raising over $33 million for his campaign right after the debate when pundits were more critical toward Biden than Trump who is so terribly flawed not just as a candidate, but as a human being.

The larger issue, of course, is whether we as a nation want to pivot toward not simply conservative politics, but rather toward the extremism embodied in both Trump and Project 2025—the mandate by the Heritage Foundation for a new Trump administration that every U.S. citizen would do well to read. And don't just read it, but share it with everyone you know to see if what they call for aligns with their values.

Considering it's close to a 900-page document, I encourage you to read a great synopsis by various writers in the June 2024 issue of  The Nation. I downloaded it as a PDF document that perhaps you can read here [pdf] without having to subscribe to it. I hope the download works. If not, it's worth subscribing to The Nation to be able to read it and other timely articles.

Clearly, a new Trump administration and a Project 2025 mandate are an existential threat for democracy and the world. Read, for instance, in Politico Magazine, "The world wasn't ready for Trump in 2016. It's not making that mistake this time." In this July 7, 2024 special report, we learn, for example, that Turkish officials are reading the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 to get a sense of what is in store for Syria.

It's interesting to consider how the recent British and French elections speak to our own context. I appreciate this textured, careful analysis of those elections written by Zack Beauchamp in the July 8, 2024 issue of Vox as reflected in the title, "The real lesson for America in the French and British elections: The European elections tell us little about Biden's chances—but a lot about his choices."

European voters are not necessarily saying with their vote that they endorse the status quo. What they're saying is that they do not want authoritarianism. Most Americans, I am confident, don't want it either. We want democracy instead. 

Democracy is never won and done. Every generation must re-discover it for themselves. However, this must absolutely show up at the ballot box in the November election. It is not one to sit out. Plan your vote and begin planning now. If you're in Texas, begin doing so by going to Vote Texas.

-Angela Valenzuela


There is one big reason why Joe Biden refuses to step aside
Presidents and other politicians used to resign or retire for the good of the country. What's changed?


By MATTHEW ROZSA Staff Writer | Salon | June 30, 2024

President Joe Biden is running against a man with 34 felony convictions, two impeachments and a historically bungled attempt to manage a pandemic. Even worse, former President Donald Trump is the only president to ever refuse to accept the results of an election if he lost, a petulant and politically perilous practice in which Trump has indulged since before he became president.

An observer might be forgiven for assuming that, as former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Salon in 2019, the American people would never stand for a president who behaves like Trump. Instead, prior to the first Trump-Biden debate, the current president trailed behind in poll after poll after poll. Even the most optimistic projections gave Biden at best a 50/50 shot of winning — and that was before a debate in which he mumbled, meandered and stared slacked-jawed and vacantly into space. As an 81-year-old man who is by far America's oldest president, Biden had an obligation to dispel concerns about his age. Instead he proved that he either genuinely is too old to be president or was inexcusably incompetent in his preparation.
Advertisement:

Given the self-evident disaster that will ensue for democracy if Trump is reelected (as well as the planet, once you factor in Trump's denial of climate change), it still behooves Trump's opponents to do whatever it takes to make sure he loses in November. For that to occur, however, one of two things must happen: Either Biden needs to slay the pride in his soul that chooses self-glorification over patriotism, or Americans need to overcome the ageism that makes so many of them recoil at Biden's obvious advancing years. Neither appears likely to happen — and to understand what ails American politics today, it is useful to examine why.

Related
Biden is now America's first octogenarian president. Here's what that means

The former problem — Biden's stubborn insistence on seeking another term despite his weaknesses as a candidate — is part of a troubling pattern. The contours of recent American history are being shaped by the egos that drive powerful leaders to refuse to retire when their time has come. Look at Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, to take a handful of the most conspicuous examples. Our courts are much more conservative, and women's reproductive rights are significantly more restricted, as a result of those politicians' unwillingness to relinquish power. While humans have always been a power-hungry species, the craving has become demonstrably more insatiable in recent years... especially when it comes to presidential politics.

"George Washington set an important precedent for the nation by retiring after two terms so that he wouldn't die in office like a king."

No incumbent president has refused to seek another term in more than half a century since Lyndon Johnson humbly stepped aside in 1968 after his poor showing in the primaries exposed his weaknesses as a candidate. Later Jimmy Carter sought a second term in 1980, despite clear indicators he would lose, and George H. W. Bush made the same choice in 1992. Prior to then, however, it was not uncommon for incumbents who were exhausted, unpopular or both to simply refrain from seeking another term. This list includes John Tyler in 1844, James Polk in 1848, James Buchanan in 1860, Andrew Johnson in 1868, Rutherford Hayes in 1880, Calvin Coolidge in 1928, Harry Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968. All decided for various reasons to not seek another term despite being technically eligible candidates (i.e., they were legally allowed to run again and would not have exceeded a total of eight years in office if they had won). Only three incumbents in American history have ever sought their party's renomination and been outright rebuffed: Millard Fillmore in 1852 and Franklin Pierce in 1856 (both elections shortly before the Civil War), and Chester Arthur in 1884 (who was almost renominated despite struggling with a fatal illness, Bright's disease). By contrast, eleven incumbent presidents have sought reelection and lost, more than one-third of them in the last half-century: John Adams in 1800, John Q. Adams in 1828, Martin Van Buren in 1840, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Benjamin Harrison in 1892, William Taft in 1912, Herbert Hoover in 1932, Gerald Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush in 1992 and Trump in 2020.

This pattern of presidential selfishness even extends to impeachments. Of the three presidents to be impeached in modern history (four if you count Richard Nixon, who would have been impeached had he not resigned first), only one (Nixon) resigned in order to spare America the ordeal of a prolonged trial. The next two presidents to be impeached, Bill Clinton and Trump, stayed in office regardless of the consequences for America. America even had a Supreme Court judge, Abe Fortas, resign because of a financial scandal rather than allow it to impugn the reputation of the court, a concern that does not seem to beset today's allegedly corrupt judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Why? What has changed since the 1970s?

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The answer is semi-psychological. While it is difficult for people who toil at miserable jobs to appreciate, individuals who sincerely enjoy their work do not want to quit for a simple reason: their specific employment is pleasurable to them. In an April article from Fortune, journalist Alicia Adamczyk profiled baby boomers who refuse to leave their jobs because they enjoy working and fear the sense of purposelessness and boredom that often accompanies retirement. A recent Pew poll found the number of Americans who choose to work past the age of 65 has quadrupled since the 1980s. While there is an important caveat to this research — it applies only to Baby Boomers even though some modern politicians (like Biden and McConnell) are actually older than Boomers — it nevertheless sheds light on one reason why Biden won't step aside from seeking a second term when so many of his predecessors did so. He likes the job of president and does not want to give it up.

"Yes, those in positions of power generally (but not always) want to stay in power," said Dr. S. Jay Olshansky, a sociologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who specializes in demographics and gerontology. "President George Washington did not follow this apparent rule – he intentionally gave up power for the good of the country. The question about power does not just apply to political power – it can apply to any position, and it's more about being important, and needed, and valued, than it is about power. As such, this is a reason many people don't want to retire."

"Ageism is real. But today’s 70 is yesterday’s 50, thanks to modern medicine."

Olshansky added, "As long as they can do their job and do it well, and most important of all, they enjoy what they do, they don't want to give it up. Have you ever heard of PIPs? Previously Important People – these are folks that often regret retiring because they lose their personal value post retirement, which is often defined by one's job or position. Some enjoy being a PIP."

There is more to this than psychology, however. Just as Washington famously warned that a demagogue might refuse to relinquish power after losing an election (which did not happen until Trump lost to Biden in 2020), so too did the founding fathers in general worry about politicians choosing to act like royalty. They specifically worried that politicians would view their vocation as a long-term career and ultimately lose touch with the people they are meant to serve.

"George Washington set an important precedent for the nation by retiring after two terms so that he wouldn't die in office like a king," Dr. Jonathan W. White, a professor of American studies at Christopher Newport University, told Salon. "Other founding documents also capture a sense of hostility toward what we would today call career politicians. In the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), for example, George Mason wrote that political leaders should 'be reduced to a private station, [and] return into that body from which they were originally taken' so that they can feel 'the burthens of the people' and be 'restrained from oppression.' In other words, Founders like Mason worried that career politicians would lose touch with what it was like to be an ordinary citizen, so they wanted politicians to have to leave office at fixed times."

White added, "The Anti-Federalists feared that politicians would lose touch with the people."

It is not always a bad thing for politicians to stay in office past the point when their health would seem to make doing so advisable. Harold Holzer, the Jonathan F. Fanton Director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College, brought up Franklin Roosevelt's unprecedented (and to this day solitary) fourth presidential campaign in 1944. In that year, Roosevelt sought an additional term even though he knew that he had high blood pressure and came from a long line of men who died early from strokes.

"As an example of people staying perhaps too long—but all for the good: FDR ran for a fourth White House term in 1944 when he knew, or should have known, he could never survive the entire term," Holzer said. "He picked a good vice president [Harry Truman]. And he believed only he could bring the war to a successful conclusion. I think he was right, even though he was a very old 62."

By contrast to non-elderly presidents struggling with serious health maladies — another famous example is Woodrow Wilson, who clung to power for the last year-and-a-half of his second term despite having suffered an incapacitating stroke — there are also political leaders who can serve but are wrongly disparaged due to ageism.

"Ageism is rearing its ugly head as news stories appear repeatedly with stereotypes of politicians acting in ways that the writers view as associated with decrepitude and decline," Olshansky said. "Most younger people have yet to experience the importance of wisdom that comes with the passage of time, and they may use stereotypes of older people to define everyone that reaches older ages. Many of the most valued members of our society are those that have developed the wisdom and experience that comes with the passage of time."

Olshansky also told Salon that, when he speaks to young students in their early 20s, they almost all say there is nothing desirable about growing older. These prejudices no doubt fuel the perception among many that Biden is simply too old for the job.

"The reason they give is that they associate growing older only with loss, decline, decay, and decrepitude," Olshansky said. "They can't see the many advantages of age because they haven't experienced it yet. If you ask older individuals if they would like to go back in time to their early years, most say they wouldn't mind occupying their younger bodies, but the thought of being insecure, with little life experience, emotional insecurities, an unsettled love life, no job, little or no money, etc. etc., is very unappealing. Older individuals should be thought of as one of society's most precious resources that should be nurtured and valued, not discarded. Younger people should aspire to get there healthy rather than fearing extended survival."

While Olshansky's observations are valid, they do not cancel out the practical concerns about Biden's candidacy. Even if Americans are being prejudiced rather than rational in deeming Biden too old to serve, a strong case can be made that one does not try to force millions to abandon their prejudices — however unfair — when the consequence of them failing to do so is the rise of fascism.

Scores of Democratic pundits are making the case that Biden should drop out. In my opinion, Joe Biden should do what Woodrow Wilson should have done in 1919: Resign. His vice president, Kamala Harris, will automatically become his heir apparent (thus sparing the Democrats a potentially volatile succession scramble). If Americans react to Thursday's debate by simply breaking down the logistics of replacing Biden, however, they will miss a much more important observation.

Long after the 2024 election is part of the history books, America will still face leaders who refuse to retire even when doing so is in the best interest of their nation. If we want to avoid more scenarios like the Trump-Biden debate, we must acknowledge the toxic aspects of our collective psyche that got us there in the first place.


Read more about this topicTrump's love letters to MAGA: Campaign emails forge a cult bond
Trump is conditioning MAGA for the next stage
Trump's pre-debate bluster is a bluff

By MATTHEW ROZSA

Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer at Salon. He received a Master's Degree in History from Rutgers-Newark in 2012 and was awarded a science journalism fellowship from the Metcalf Institute in 2022.