The king is dead, and it isn't a surprise

Posted

From the urgent, breaking news reports last week, one might have thought that a young, dynamic world leader was cut down in his prime. However, it was actually the 90-year-old king of Saudi Arabia, who succumbed to natural causes.

Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, hailed by some supporters as wildly progressive because he was thinking about thinking about letting Saudi women drive, died after years of serious health issues. News stories go on and on about his benign regime, which, in reality, was much like all other Saudi regimes: dictatorial, secretive and sexist. Women in Saudi Arabia cannot conduct official business, undergo medical procedures or travel without a male guardian (a husband, father or brother). So much for Abdullah’s enlightened reign.

The king was succeeded — within minutes, apparently — by the heir apparent, Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, 79, the new kid on the throne. In the interest of full disclosure, few people know the exact ages of the Saudi rulers because, like my mother, they don’t want to tell, and they don’t have to.

Still, isn’t it fascinating that this oil-rich and powerful country selects its supreme leaders from a chosen few really old guys, many of whom cannot reasonably expect to live another five years? The new king, it is said (by CNN), may already have dementia. In America, we’re wondering aloud whether Hillary Clinton is too old to run for president, and she’s only 67. In Saudi Arabia, she wouldn’t have to think about it for 20 years, if she could think about it, which she can’t, because she’s a woman. By the way, no one brings up the age question regarding Mitt Romney, and he’s the same age as Hillary. Ronald Reagan was 69 when he became president, and we won’t even touch the question of cognitive impairment as the years of his presidency rolled by.

Page 1 / 3