Thread Rating:

beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14232
July 8th, 2015 at 6:31:54 PM permalink
Quote: Aussie

Why is she still referred to as "Secretary Clinton" when she ceased being secretary a few years ago?



The American social custom is to address a dignitary by their highest elected or appointed position, unless they're serving in a different current job with its own title. In her case, Secretary of State is considered to be higher than Senator, and both outrank Mrs., so the referent for now is "Secretary". Should she become President, she will be addressed as such (after leaving, sometimes with the word "Former" preceding) for the rest of her life, and not "Secretary". Chances are she will always be referred to with her full name, as there will have been 2 President Clintons in that event.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
July 8th, 2015 at 6:35:44 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Should she become President, she will be addressed as such



Yes, and if she becomes an honorary colonel,
like Colonel Sanders, she could be called
colonel for the rest of her life. That's more
likely to happen than president.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 12671
July 8th, 2015 at 6:35:58 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

On this issue, absolutely.

Many young voters (dem or republican) are instantly turned off by a candidate if they are anti-equality and pro-bigotry. It is an important issue to them. I have no problem with liberals "dragging out" the social issues. The next president will get to appoint a few Supreme Court nominees. Where they stand on social issues is a HUGE deal in that regard. So no, we don't "need to quit dragging out the social issues."



What is important is where a SCOTUS justice stands on the Constitution, not on social issues. Thus is an example of why it is so dangerous to have a liberal POTUS, they do not understand this concept and think SOTUS is a tool to implement policy.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
July 8th, 2015 at 7:38:32 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

The American social custom is to address a dignitary by their highest elected or appointed position, unless they're serving in a different current job with its own title. In her case, Secretary of State is considered to be higher than Senator, and both outrank Mrs., so the referent for now is "Secretary".



I am with you to this point...

Quote: beachbumbabs

Should she become President, she will be addressed as such (after leaving, sometimes with the word "Former" preceding) for the rest of her life, and not "Secretary". Chances are she will always be referred to with her full name, as there will have been 2 President Clintons in that event.



That point seems to be debatable. The continued use of "President" (as in "President Clinton") is not exactly how everyone describes proper usage. Since there is only one "President of the United States", it has been customary for the title they are referred to revert back to their highest former (and non-singular, by some accounts) title.

President Obama would be Senator Obama
President Bush, Governor Bush
President Clinton, Governor Clinton
President Bush 41, Ambassador Bush ("Regarding Bush 41, in the rules of protocol Ambassador is a big deal and outranks Congressman or agency director. Ironically, GHW Bush has the same title as Carol Mosley Braun, Eleanor Roosevelt or Adlai Stevenson, all also better known for things other than ambassadorial posts. Recall that Braun was called Ambassador Braun rather than Senator Braun in the debates" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2340220)

" Here's the WHY behind the correct form. This is the traditional approach for any office of which there is only one office-holder at a time. So, with officials such as mayors, governors or presidents ... only the current office holder is addressed as Mr. Mayor, Governor, or Mr. President ... formers are not addressed that way.
That's not to say some reporter might not call a former mayor Mayor Smith or a former president President (Surname). But doing so is incorrect and confusing to the public. The former office holder is no longer due the precedence and courtesies we extend to the current office holder. He or she speaks with the authority of a private citizen. We honor former office holder's service, but the 'form of address' -- which acknowledges the responsibilities and duties of office -- belongs only to current office holder.
With offices of which are many office-holders at a time ... senators, admirals, judges, etc. addressing 'formers' with their former honorific not disrespectful to a singular current office holder.
To explain the correct form I would say "using the title of a former position is flattering to the former official and he or she may not correct you, but is not respectful to the current office holder. There's only one "(name of the office)" at a time."
-- Robert Hickey

http://www.formsofaddress.info/former.html#FO003

It appears that the titles Governor and Mayor may not get the same "one office holder" treatment as the title of President does in all cases; otherwise no one would say so many former Presidents should be addressed as "Governor". There is not one Mayor or Governor, there are many. There is only one President and one Vice President of the United States. Perhaps that is why the former titles are rather murky in usage.

The press is one of the main reasons we here "President ___________" so often...it is a much quicker form than formerly more proper usage. Usage changes; one day all of the old traditions may be gone.

That would be sad.
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14232
July 8th, 2015 at 8:42:32 PM permalink
Quote: RonC

I am with you to this point...



That point seems to be debatable. The continued use of "President" (as in "President Clinton") is not exactly how everyone describes proper usage. Since there is only one "President of the United States", it has been customary for the title they are referred to revert back to their highest former (and non-singular, by some accounts) title.

President Obama would be Senator Obama
President Bush, Governor Bush
President Clinton, Governor Clinton
President Bush 41, Ambassador Bush ("Regarding Bush 41, in the rules of protocol Ambassador is a big deal and outranks Congressman or agency director. Ironically, GHW Bush has the same title as Carol Mosley Braun, Eleanor Roosevelt or Adlai Stevenson, all also better known for things other than ambassadorial posts. Recall that Braun was called Ambassador Braun rather than Senator Braun in the debates" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2340220)

" Here's the WHY behind the correct form. This is the traditional approach for any office of which there is only one office-holder at a time. So, with officials such as mayors, governors or presidents ... only the current office holder is addressed as Mr. Mayor, Governor, or Mr. President ... formers are not addressed that way.
That's not to say some reporter might not call a former mayor Mayor Smith or a former president President (Surname). But doing so is incorrect and confusing to the public. The former office holder is no longer due the precedence and courtesies we extend to the current office holder. He or she speaks with the authority of a private citizen. We honor former office holder's service, but the 'form of address' -- which acknowledges the responsibilities and duties of office -- belongs only to current office holder.
With offices of which are many office-holders at a time ... senators, admirals, judges, etc. addressing 'formers' with their former honorific not disrespectful to a singular current office holder.
To explain the correct form I would say "using the title of a former position is flattering to the former official and he or she may not correct you, but is not respectful to the current office holder. There's only one "(name of the office)" at a time."
-- Robert Hickey

http://www.formsofaddress.info/former.html#FO003

It appears that the titles Governor and Mayor may not get the same "one office holder" treatment as the title of President does in all cases; otherwise no one would say so many former Presidents should be addressed as "Governor". There is not one Mayor or Governor, there are many. There is only one President and one Vice President of the United States. Perhaps that is why the former titles are rather murky in usage.

The press is one of the main reasons we here "President ___________" so often...it is a much quicker form than formerly more proper usage. Usage changes; one day all of the old traditions may be gone.

That would be sad.



I appreciate that you went to the trouble of looking up the exact etiquette of the honorifics. I was explaining common and current practices in the media and formal introductions these days, as you noted. I went to a thing with Bill Clinton in 2012, for example, and the podium introduced him as "President Bill Clinton" without the "Former" or as "Governor" or any more correct address according to your sources (which I don't doubt are correct).
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 12671
July 9th, 2015 at 3:12:28 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

I am with you to this point...



That point seems to be debatable. The continued use of "President" (as in "President Clinton") is not exactly how everyone describes proper usage. Since there is only one "President of the United States", it has been customary for the title they are referred to revert back to their highest former (and non-singular, by some accounts) title.



I have to wonder what the "official" way would be for Eisenhower? Once you are "General of the Army" you can't leave the Army. He was actually allowed to suspend his commission while POTUS, but they got it back. This is a weird thing for five-stars only.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
July 9th, 2015 at 4:23:43 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

I have to wonder what the "official" way would be for Eisenhower? Once you are "General of the Army" you can't leave the Army. He was actually allowed to suspend his commission while POTUS, but they got it back. This is a weird thing for five-stars only.



Here is a snippet that may describe it:

"Here's what is the correct formula as it appears in my book (assuming they didn't have an honorific other than Mr./Ms. to go back to ... as General Dwight D. Eisenhower did.)"

http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_president_US_former.html

Since "General" is a rank that many people have, I think that is correct.
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
July 9th, 2015 at 4:35:37 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

I appreciate that you went to the trouble of looking up the exact etiquette of the honorifics. I was explaining common and current practices in the media and formal introductions these days, as you noted. I went to a thing with Bill Clinton in 2012, for example, and the podium introduced him as "President Bill Clinton" without the "Former" or as "Governor" or any more correct address according to your sources (which I don't doubt are correct).



I do believe that the "lose" usage that the media and many of us fall into is not necessarily a good thing. I have probably referred to a former President as President, which is incorrect and I will try to keep from doing it in the future. I think a certain amount of respect for the office itself is appropriate and there is only one President at a time.

I don't think any President has a perfect record at it, but keeping the basic decorum of the office by wearing a coat and tie at most times in the office is important. Why? It demonstrates visually that you acknowledge the importance and seriousness of the job. Have a lot of them failed to do it or kicked back in their chair and put their feet up? Of course; we haven't had the perfect President yet. They work long days and are really never off (no matter how much we gripe about the long vacations of one of them or the other).
AZDuffman
AZDuffman 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 229
  • Posts: 12671
July 9th, 2015 at 5:16:26 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

Here is a snippet that may describe it:

"Here's what is the correct formula as it appears in my book (assuming they didn't have an honorific other than Mr./Ms. to go back to ... as General Dwight D. Eisenhower did.)"

http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_president_US_former.html

Since "General" is a rank that many people have, I think that is correct.



There is a little more to it, though. Suppose a POTUS goes back to Congress, which has happened once IIRC. Do they get the "lower" title even though it is more current? Ike went back to being a general. It was emeritus, but once you get that job you have it. At least I read that way back when I was at the military bank. Not sure if Grant fell under this or just a 5-Star.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 173
  • Posts: 10452
July 9th, 2015 at 5:24:25 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

I do believe that the "lose" usage that the media and many of us fall into is not necessarily a good thing. I have probably referred to a former President as President, which is incorrect and I will try to keep from doing it in the future. I think a certain amount of respect for the office itself is appropriate and there is only one President at a time.



Unless the current President is in the room(area), I would refer to any of the ex's as "President _______, if I was greeting them in person. Unless told specifically how to address them, that's what I would do.

Assuming I was not in any official capacity myself, I'm just a citizen and just follow what I normally would consider a respectful manner. Means nothing more than that, I think. I'll use a respectful address to a janitor, instead of "Hey you." whether they get that from everyone else or not. Same goes for everyone, on first meeting.

All of them are usually older and I usually go for a respectful handle. Unless of course, I'm there to officially throw tomatoes at them -- then maybe not.

What are they gonna do, shoot me, if I am too formal?

(Besides my mama would slap me for going around acting casual)
The Hall of Unverified Claims is a vast place with many shelves.

  • Jump to: