Rudy Giuliani has been in the news (a lot) lately. Presumably to add gravitas to his role in the post-election Trump machine he has been referred to frequently as ‘Mayor Giuliani’.
Is this a common honorific to retain in the US, as with ex-presidents and chicken-frying colonels? I can’t say I’ve noticed it being used before.
The question is not about Rudy per se, so leave your mockery of his fatuous legal claims and dripping hair-dye and shirt-tucking to other fora. This is all about the dignity of the office.
It’s quite common for various officials with official titles to be referred to by those titles after they leave office.
After Ronald Reagan was governor of California, when he later ran for president, his campaign always referred to him as “Governor Reagan”.
During the presidential campaign, before Joe Biden became “President-elect Joe Biden” he was routinely referred to as “Vice President”.
It’s quite a routine courtesy to refer to former officials in this way.
One notable exception that I recall: When Jimmy Carter was running for president against Ronald Reagan, I noted that even though everyone referred to Reagan as “Governor Reagan”, nobody ever referred to Carter as “Governor Carter” even though he too was a former governor.
The Guardian, a British newspaper, refers to him in this article where they announce that he is in hospital because he has tested positive for the virus as “Donald Trump’s personal attorney” and “a former mayor of New York City”.
Miss Manners cites the rule that you retain, as a form of address, the highest non-unique title you held. Since there are many mayors at any given point, “Mayor Giuliani” would be correct while addressing the current President-Elect as “Vice President Biden” was not (as there is only one Vice President at any time).
That sounds more like a rule made up by one particular etiquette advice column, rather than something that is universally followed. By that logic, former Presidents should not be addressed by that title, but this practice is very common.
Traditionally former presidents go back to the form of address to which they were entitled prior to taking office. For example, in retirment Dwight Eisenhower was correctly addressed as General (Full name) on the envelope and as Dear General (Surname) in the salutation. After Harry Truman left the presidency he directed others to address him as Mr. Truman.
I see. So there seems to be a basis for that rule beyond Miss Manners’ personal views. I do note, however, that this website still treats former Presidents the same way it treats former mayors (because it also views mayor as a one-office-holder-at-a-time office, there being only one mayor in any one city).
Biden was frequently referred to as Vice-President Biden in the media, so I don’t see that rule as applying there. You now see media personalities sometimes calling him VP then correcting themselves and calling him “President Elect Biden”.
Not just that - former Secretary of this-or-that are often called “Secretary” when being interviewed, as are senators, and similar titles. So I suppose that Miss Manners is pretty close to the mark. I have seen former presidents addressed or mentioned as “President Bush” or “President Carter” unless context is a bit more important, when they add former president… which usually occurs as part of an explanation/introduction at the beginning of an interview or such.
I don’t think anyone is confused about these titles or thinks the media is trying to confuse people.
Thanks for the replies, and differing perspectives. The practice in the US seems to be very different to that in Australia.
Here you generally don’t keep former titles, we explicitly say ‘Former’ or ‘Ex’-Prime Minister, although maybe senior military officers get to keep their rank. It is never part of your title. No-one who was once mayor would probably use it as an honorific, and it would not be mentioned outside the specific context of voicing an opinion about the current mayor or local goings-on, or when they faced court, in the form 'Disgraced former mayor … ’
Pete Buttigieg was consistently called “Mayor Pete” in the media. Though generally using the first name is not considered correct protocol. I’d imagine he’d be considered Mayor Buttigieg until he gets a bigger position.
I seem to recall both Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg being referred to as Mayor Buttigieg/Bloomberg during the Democratic Debates.
Atlanta’s mayor has been referred to as Mayor Lance-Bottoms while on TV news shows as well.
Yes, and ISTM part of the usage drift has to do with a merger of style of reference (how you identify someone when speaking or writing to others about them) with style of address (how do you show respect when speaking/writing to them, personally). In reference, of course the first mention should be “Former [Office] So-and-So” so we all know who we are talking about. It’s what happens afterward and in personal address that apparently is awkward to some. There seems to have developed a popular drift in the direction of a one-size-fits-all solution of both referring to and addressing every former official as if they still held whatever is that we consider their highest prior office, whatever that office was. As if somehow it were rude to acknowledge you no longer hold the post.
Whenever I see a former president do a tv interview during an exchange with the anchor they are often still referred to as Mr President. Whether it’s Barack Obama who left the White House just four years ago or Jimmy Carter who left the White House forty years ago.
Not to me. I mean, I get why he wouldn’t be called Governor Carter when he was president and running against Reagan, but I assume they mean no one called him Governor Carter when he ran against Ford.
Best guess is that it’s because, as Wikipedia says, he “ran as an outsider.”
Right, I had the chronology a bit confused. When Carter ran against incumbent Ford in 1976, nobody called him Governor Carter (which I didn’t particularly notice at the time). When he ran for re-election in 1980, all of Reagan’s people consistently referred to him as Governor Reagan, and that’s when I noticed that, four years earlier, nobody had been calling Carter “Governor”. I imagined it was at Carter’s preference, that he preferred to be seen as just one of us humble common-folk. Peanut-farmer Carter.
Since etiquette calls for use of the highest office held by the person addressed, I wonder how it is determined which office is the highest. Suppose someone has been both a governor and a senator at some stages in the past. Senator is a federal office, governor is a state office; but there is only one governor per state. So is the rule that federal offices of any kind beat state offices of any kind? Would, for instance, someone who’s been both a governor and a representative be addressed as “Congressman”?
And on the same level, is there a rule that executive offices beat legislative ones? I remember that during the 2016 campaign, Clinton was consistently addressed as Secretary, not as Senator.
It’s the order of precedence, which is basically the order in which Important People get introduced at formal parties of the sort attended by Important People. Most people don’t give a fig about that sort of thing any more, but the folks who plan that sort of party do.
This is also the origin of “First Lady”: Back in the day when a woman’s social status derived from her husband, the wife of the President would have the highest social status possible. That’s now obsolete, of course, because a woman can hold social status in her own right, but because of nobody caring, I don’t think anyone’s come up with an update to the rules.
Used to be a Mayor, but it has been sixteen years… If an elected official was the executive of a jurisdiction, they should be (called) honorable - or scumbag if that was the context appropriate label. The actual position title was preferred. No cite here - just my poor memory of a state municipal league intro to being mayor course. Lotsa mail came to me addressed to the Honorable (FNAME). Even after i quit, the mail continued. My solution: call me “formerly honorable”.