Ageism. Women. Campaigns.

The Invisible Glass Ceiling: How Ageism and Sexism Intersect in Democratic Campaigns

Photo Credit: From CampaignAsia

How women who broke gender barriers in politics now face a new form of discrimination that threatens to erase decades of hard-won progress

The time has come to recognize that the glass ceiling in politics has not been shattered—it has simply moved higher, and it disproportionately affects women as they age. Breaking through this invisible barrier requires the same kind of systematic effort, cultural change, and institutional reform that previous generations used to address other forms of discrimination in political life. The women who broke the first barriers deserve nothing less than full inclusion and respect throughout their careers, and the Democratic Party's future effectiveness may well depend on ensuring they receive it.

As a Woman of a Certain Age, this issue is most near and dear to me as I have spent my entire professional career in the political arena. I have watched, over the last three election cycles, the outright dismissal of older women by Democratic campaigns and organizations, when in fact, they should be begging them to come on board.

This election cycle seems particularly brutal.

In the corridors of power where Democratic campaigns are born and executed, a troubling pattern has emerged. Women who spent decades breaking through the gender barriers that once defined American politics now find themselves facing a different kind of exclusion—one that combines the persistent effects of sexism with the growing specter of ageism. This intersection creates what researchers increasingly recognize as "gendered ageism," a phenomenon that systematically devalues experienced women at precisely the career stage when their male counterparts are viewed as wise, seasoned, and authoritative.

The women affected by this trend are not newcomers to political combat. They are the consultants who engineered breakthrough victories, the operatives who built the modern Democratic ground game, the strategists who navigated campaigns through crisis and triumph. Yet as they reach their peak years of experience and wisdom, many find themselves quietly pushed to the margins, their expertise dismissed, their contributions minimized, and their futures in the political arena increasingly uncertain.

The Never-Right Age Trap

Research consistently demonstrates that there is simply "never a right age" for a woman seeking leadership in American politics. This temporal impossibility creates a career-long gauntlet that men rarely navigate with the same intensity or consequences.

In their twenties and thirties, women entering Democratic campaigns face immediate credibility challenges. They are frequently mistaken for support staff, assumed to be less experienced than male peers of identical age, and must work significantly harder to be taken seriously in strategy meetings or client presentations. Young women often report being asked to take notes in meetings where they should be contributing ideas, or being introduced by their first names while male colleagues receive formal titles and full introductions.

The challenges evolve but never disappear as women advance. In their forties, the assumptions shift to concerns about family obligations and divided attention. Campaign organizations, notorious for their demanding schedules and total-commitment culture, often view women in this age bracket as potentially unreliable or less committed to the all-consuming nature of political work. The irony is profound: just as these women have developed the expertise and networks that make them most valuable, they encounter new barriers based on presumptions about their personal lives and priorities.

By their sixties, women who have survived and thrived through decades of political battles face perhaps the most insidious discrimination of all. Suddenly, their experience becomes a liability rather than an asset. They are seen as too close to retirement to merit significant investments in training or new opportunities. Their deep institutional knowledge is dismissed as outdated thinking, and their hard-won networks are viewed as relics of a bygone era rather than valuable resources.

This creates a devastating professional paradox: women spend the first half of their careers proving they belong in political leadership, only to spend the second half fighting to remain relevant and included in the very spaces they helped create and define.

The Marginalization of Experience

The systematic exclusion of older women from Democratic campaign leadership represents one of the most significant wastes of human capital in modern politics. These are women who have seen campaigns evolve from largely analog operations to sophisticated digital enterprises. They have navigated changing media landscapes, shifting voter demographics, and evolving campaign technologies. They possess institutional memory about what works, what fails, and why certain strategies succeed or backfire in specific contexts.

Yet this wealth of experience is increasingly discounted in favor of what campaign organizations characterize as "fresh thinking" or "new perspectives." The language used to describe ideal candidates for senior campaign roles—dynamic, innovative, energetic, cutting-edge—often serves as coded language for young, with the added implication that experience and wisdom are somehow incompatible with effectiveness.

The marginalization takes many forms. Experienced women consultants report being excluded from pitch meetings for major campaigns, with organizations opting instead for younger teams perceived as more "in touch" with contemporary voters. Others describe being offered peripheral roles that utilize only a fraction of their capabilities, effectively sidelining them from the strategic decision-making they are uniquely qualified to inform.

Perhaps most damaging is the gradual erosion of professional networks and opportunities. As younger operatives are elevated to positions of influence, they naturally tend to hire and recommend people from their own professional cohorts. The informal networks that drive much of campaign hiring begin to exclude older women, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of exclusion that becomes increasingly difficult to break.

Structural Barriers and Institutional Gatekeeping

The Democratic Party's commitment to diversity and inclusion has yielded significant progress in many areas, yet age-based discrimination against women remains largely unaddressed and often unacknowledged. The structural barriers that enable this discrimination are deeply embedded in campaign culture and political institutions.

Campaign organizations typically operate through informal hiring networks and personal recommendations rather than transparent, merit-based selection processes. This opacity allows unconscious bias to flourish, as decision-makers gravitate toward candidates who "feel" right for the role—a subjective assessment often influenced by ageist and sexist assumptions about who embodies leadership and competence.

The emphasis on "fresh faces" and "new blood" in campaign leadership, while often well-intentioned, can serve to systematically exclude women who have spent decades building expertise. The irony is particularly acute in Democratic campaigns, which frequently champion the value of experience when promoting older male candidates for elected office while simultaneously devaluing experience when it comes to the women who run those very campaigns.

Financial structures within campaign organizations also disadvantage older women disproportionately. Many campaign roles are structured as short-term contracts without benefits, a model that younger operatives may find exciting but that poses significant challenges for older workers who need health insurance and retirement security. The feast-or-famine nature of campaign work, while challenging for everyone, can be particularly devastating for women in their fifties and sixties who may have fewer options for alternative income sources.

The physical demands of campaign work—long hours, extensive travel, high-stress environments—are often used to justify age discrimination, despite little evidence that older women are less capable of handling these challenges than their younger or male counterparts. The assumption that physical stamina correlates directly with age, and that age correlates with effectiveness, pervades hiring decisions in ways that would be considered discriminatory in other industries.

The Evolution of Exclusion

The narratives that once kept women out of politics entirely have not disappeared; they have evolved to create new forms of exclusion targeted specifically at older women. Where previous generations of women fought against assumptions that they were unsuitable for leadership or unable to handle political pressure, today's older women face subtly different but equally damaging stereotypes.

The contemporary version of these biases suggests that older women are out of touch with modern voters, particularly younger demographics that campaigns increasingly prioritize. They are characterized as inflexible, unable to adapt to new technologies or campaign techniques, and overly attached to outdated strategies that may no longer be relevant in contemporary political environments.

These assumptions ignore the reality that many of the women facing age discrimination were the very innovators who developed the techniques and strategies now considered standard practice in Democratic campaigns. They were early adopters of voter database technology, pioneers in opposition research, architects of modern fundraising techniques, and developers of the sophisticated ground game operations that define successful Democratic campaigns.

The portrayal of older women as technological laggards is particularly unfair and inaccurate. Many have successfully adapted to multiple waves of technological change throughout their careers, demonstrating precisely the kind of flexibility and learning agility that campaigns claim to value. Yet the stereotype persists, creating barriers to opportunities that would allow them to demonstrate their continued relevance and capability.

The Confidence Crisis

The psychological impact of gendered ageism extends far beyond individual career consequences. Women who have spent decades building expertise and credibility find themselves questioning their own value and relevance in ways that can be deeply damaging to both mental health and professional effectiveness.

The internalization of ageist messages can create a vicious cycle. As older women encounter repeated signals that they are no longer valued or relevant, some begin to doubt their own capabilities and withdraw from competitive situations where they might face further rejection. This self-limiting behavior, while understandable as a protective mechanism, can inadvertently reinforce the very stereotypes that created the problem in the first place.

The confidence crisis is compounded by the lack of visible role models. Unlike other industries where older women have achieved and maintained prominent leadership positions, Democratic campaign organizations have few examples of women in their sixties or seventies who continue to play central strategic roles. This absence of representation makes it difficult for women facing age discrimination to envision pathways forward or to maintain confidence in their continued value to the political process.

The mental health implications are significant and largely unaddressed. Depression, anxiety, and feelings of professional worthlessness are common among women experiencing age-based discrimination, yet these psychological impacts receive little attention in discussions about campaign culture or political leadership development.

Economic Vulnerabilities

The financial implications of gendered ageism in Democratic campaigns extend far beyond individual career concerns to represent a significant economic justice issue. Women who built careers in politics during earlier decades often did so without the benefit of mentorship, sponsorship, or systematic support that might have helped them build more secure financial foundations.

Many older women in campaign work today began their careers at a time when few women held senior positions in political organizations. They lacked female role models who could provide guidance on career development, salary negotiation, or retirement planning. They often accepted lower compensation than male counterparts, both because pay equity was less emphasized and because they had fewer opportunities to understand their market value.

The project-based nature of much campaign work means that many experienced women lack the traditional retirement benefits available to those in more conventional career paths. When age discrimination begins to limit their opportunities, they may find themselves without adequate financial resources to weather extended periods of unemployment or underemployment.

This economic vulnerability creates additional pressure to accept roles that underutilize their skills or to remain in positions that may not align with their experience level simply to maintain income. The result is a workforce of highly qualified women who are economically compelled to accept professional marginalization, a dynamic that serves no one's interests effectively.

The Innovation Paradox

Perhaps the most counterproductive aspect of age discrimination against women in Democratic campaigns is how it wastes precisely the kind of innovative thinking and strategic wisdom that campaigns claim to seek. The characterization of older women as obstacles to innovation ignores the reality that true innovation often comes from the intersection of deep experience and fresh perspective.

Women who have navigated multiple campaign cycles possess irreplaceable knowledge about what strategies succeed under different conditions, how to manage various types of crises, and how to build coalition support across diverse constituencies. This institutional memory is not a barrier to innovation; it is the foundation upon which effective innovation must be built.

The dismissal of experienced women as "stuck in old ways" fails to recognize that the most effective campaign innovations often come from understanding why previous approaches succeeded or failed. Women who lived through the evolution of Democratic campaign strategy can provide crucial context for evaluating new ideas and techniques, helping to avoid repeating historical mistakes while building on proven successes.

Moreover, the assumption that innovation requires youth ignores substantial research showing that creativity and strategic thinking often peak later in careers, as individuals develop the confidence and perspective needed to challenge conventional wisdom effectively. The systematic exclusion of older women from campaign leadership may be eliminating precisely the voices most capable of generating breakthrough strategies and approaches.

Toward Systematic Solutions

Addressing gendered ageism in Democratic campaigns requires more than individual resilience or personal adaptation strategies. The systemic nature of the problem demands systematic solutions that address both cultural attitudes and structural barriers that enable discrimination to flourish.

Recognition of the problem represents a crucial first step. Campaign organizations must acknowledge that age discrimination against women is real, pervasive, and economically damaging to both individuals and the broader political enterprise. This recognition must extend beyond general statements of support for diversity to specific acknowledgment of how ageism intersects with sexism to create unique barriers for older women.

Structural reforms to hiring and promotion processes could significantly reduce opportunities for discrimination. Implementing transparent, criteria-based evaluation systems would help ensure that hiring decisions are based on qualifications and capabilities rather than subjective assessments that may be influenced by unconscious bias. Regular auditing of hiring patterns and outcomes could help identify when age discrimination is occurring and create accountability for addressing it.

Creating formal mentorship and sponsorship programs specifically designed to support older women could help counteract the network effects that contribute to their exclusion. These programs should not focus on "updating" older women's skills to match younger colleagues, but rather on leveraging their unique expertise while connecting them with opportunities that fully utilize their capabilities.

Professional organizations and women's groups within the Democratic political ecosystem have important roles to play in addressing this issue. By creating forums for discussing age discrimination, providing platforms for older women to share their expertise, and advocating for structural changes within campaign organizations, these groups can help shift both individual experiences and institutional practices.

Cultural Transformation

Ultimately, addressing gendered ageism in Democratic campaigns requires a fundamental shift in how political organizations think about experience, wisdom, and leadership capability. The current culture that equates youth with innovation and energy with effectiveness must evolve to recognize the value that comes with decades of strategic thinking and crisis management.

This cultural transformation must begin with language and representation. Campaign organizations should examine how they describe ideal candidates and team members, ensuring that coded language about youth and energy is not being used to exclude qualified older women. Leadership teams should include visible representation of older women in strategic roles, providing both practical expertise and symbolic evidence that age is not a barrier to continued contribution.

The narrative around political leadership must also evolve to recognize that different types of wisdom and perspective are valuable at different stages of campaigns and political movements. The energy and enthusiasm of younger operatives is indeed valuable, but so too is the strategic patience and institutional knowledge of older women who have navigated multiple political cycles.

Training programs for campaign managers and political leaders should include specific modules on recognizing and addressing age discrimination, particularly as it intersects with gender bias. These programs should help leaders understand how unconscious bias affects hiring and promotion decisions and provide tools for creating more inclusive organizational cultures.

The Path Forward

The women who broke gender barriers in Democratic politics deserve better than to see their careers ended by a new form of discrimination that combines age and gender bias in uniquely damaging ways. Their contributions to Democratic victories and progressive causes represent decades of expertise that political organizations can ill afford to waste.

Addressing gendered ageism requires recognizing it as both a civil rights issue and a practical political imperative. Campaign organizations that systematically exclude experienced women are not only perpetrating discrimination; they are also diminishing their own effectiveness by eliminating valuable perspectives and expertise from strategic decision-making processes.

The solution is not to lower expectations or create special accommodations for older women, but rather to ensure that evaluation and hiring processes are truly merit-based and free from the unconscious biases that currently disadvantage experienced women. This means creating transparent criteria for roles, implementing systematic evaluation processes, and regularly auditing outcomes to ensure that discrimination is not occurring.

It also means fundamentally changing how Democratic political organizations think about experience and expertise. Rather than viewing older women as obstacles to innovation or reminders of outdated approaches, campaigns should recognize them as repositories of institutional knowledge and strategic wisdom that can inform and improve contemporary political efforts.

The fight against gendered ageism in Democratic campaigns is ultimately about ensuring that the party's commitment to equality and inclusion extends to all women throughout their careers, not just during their younger years. It is about recognizing that breaking gender barriers is not a one-time achievement but an ongoing process that must be defended and extended across all stages of women's professional lives.

The women who pioneered paths for others in Democratic politics should not have to watch those paths narrow as they age. Instead, they should see their contributions valued, their expertise respected, and their continued participation welcomed as the valuable resource it represents. Only by addressing gendered ageism directly and systematically can Democratic organizations ensure that they are truly living up to their stated values of inclusion, equality, and respect for all individuals regardless of age or gender.

The stakes extend far beyond individual careers or personal fulfillment. In an era when political expertise and institutional knowledge are more valuable than ever, the systematic exclusion of experienced women represents a strategic weakness that Democratic organizations can no longer afford. The path forward requires acknowledgment, action, and a commitment to ensuring that all women can contribute fully to political leadership throughout their careers.

If you have a story, I want to hear from you! All responses will be kept confidential.