To those playing along, when Carter was running against Reagan, Carter was the sitting president, so he was routinely addressed as “President Carter.” It would have been weird to refer to him as “Governor Carter” at that point.
When ex-Vice President Mondale ran against Reagan in 1984, he was addressed as “Vice President Mondale.”
Best guess is that “It’s not true.”
I did a quick google. The first thing I came up with is a video from a Ford-Carter debate in 1976. Right off the bat, the moderator addresses Carter as “Governor Carter.”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?33210-1/1976-presidential-candidates-debate
But not after January 1, 2020, where he was still called Mayor Pete (and even to this day).
“Honorable” is not a title; it’s a style, i.e., a way of addressing someone who holds a title. They’re more common in monarchies: For instance, the Queen’s title is Queen, but her style is Her Majesty in the third person and Your Majesty in the second person; the other members of the royal family have the style His/Her/Your Royal Highness (style) but Prince (Philip) or Duke/Duchess (most of the others) as a title.
Nonetheless, styles also exist in republics, and Honorable is an example. Another style that is used in republics is “Excellency” - the POTUS is one, but that style is nowadays only used in diplomatic protocol.
There was a recent update. It’s been announced that Doug Emhoff’s title will officially be Second Gentleman.
I wish we had taken the opportunity to get ride of the notion that an elected official’s spouse gets any special status at all. The spouse of the British prime minister isn’t “first” anything.
Well, yes - but it’s also true that the British prime minister isn’t the head of state and the US president is. Pretty sure the spouse of the British head of state gets a title.
That would be “Queen” or “Prince (Consort)”.
The designation “First Lady” was IIRC originally just a social courtesy, meaning the highest ranking wife in the order of state protocol. In the case of a widowed or bachelor US president, there would be a family member or in-law designated as Hostess of the White House An actual “Office of the First Lady” has only formally existed since 1977.
So what? The president isn’t a monarch. E is just an elected official like any other.
In my view, too much is made of the “head of state” matter. The president acts as head of state as part of es function as a head of a branch of government. It’s not anything more special than that.
And even if you care about the “head of state” issue, E is head of state as part of a democratic system. Family relationships should be irrelevant in that context.
I only started hearing people refer to former presidents as President X about ten years ago, and I thought it stinks. I still do. It smacks of royalty.
I wouldn’t put it that way. In diplomatic protocol as well as international law, there is a significant difference between a head of state and a head of government.
That maybe the case but so far as society and the actual functioning of the governmental system, it’s not significant at all, and should not be regarded as significant.
In any case, labeling the office as head of state has zero necessary implications for the spouse.
I disagree also with that. It may look like that from the perspective of someone who’s primarily used to the American-style politcial system where the two functions coincide in one office. But in countries where the two offices are distinct, differences exist, and people do perceive those differences. The head of government is the one setting the political agenda and wielding actual power; this has the consequence that, necessarily, large percentages of the population will disagree with the holder of that office. The head of state, on the other hand, is supposed to be impartial, above partisan politics, and a symbol that gives unifying inspirational speeches the entire national can rally behind. Viz. the Queen versus the Prime Minister in the UK, the Governor-General versus the Prime Minister in the other Westminster-style Commonwealth kingdoms, or President versus Prime Minister/Chancellor/Minister-President/whatever title in the usual set-up in continental European parliamentary republics.
There are also mixed (“semi-presidential”) systems where the offices of head of state and head of government are separate, but both of them wield actual power; France is the prime example for this. In such a system the unifying influence of the head of state can be limited. But in systems where the head of government runs the country and the head of state is a figurehead for ceremonial purposes, the offices are noticeably distinct and generally perceived as such.
I’m not only talking about an American-style political system. I’m talking about the American political system. This conversation arose from a comment about Kamala Harris’s husband.
On the more general point, I see no need for a democratic republic or a republican democracy to embody the state in an individual human being. (Monarchies have specifically chosen to conceive of the state as being embodied in a person.) However, that’s a different conversation.
The nuclear sub named for Carter is the USS Jimmy Carter. not James Carter , I guess they asked him which name he preferred. He served on a sub in the navy. Now the standard is aircraft carriers are mostly named for presidents. the most recent new ones are the Reagan, Ford and Bush Sr.
I wonder if part of the difference might be a difference in role. In the USA, I think that the mayor is an executive officer? – rather like the town clerk in Australia, but hired by election. You continue to be a “mayor” even when you’re not employed – like being an engineer or a scientist. It’s what you are, not just what you are doing.
In the US, the mayor is the top boss of a city, and yes, is elected by the people of the city. It’s not a vocation: The mayor was probably a lawyer or businessman or lesser city official before he was mayor, and after he finishes being mayor, he might go back to that other job, or he might go on to higher office, such as Representative, Senator, or Governor (which are also elected by their respective constituencies). The mayor might consider “politician” to be his vocation, and continue to be a politician even while not actively holding any office, but a politician is likely to seek many different offices.
How does it work in Australia?
And there are then other municipalities that are not run by a Mayor but by a City Manager, selected by the city/town council. Council–manager government - Wikipedia
It’s mostly a position elected by the other counselors, that you get if you play your cards right after serving a few terms. There are some exceptions. Most councils don’t have much power or influence except on planning decisions, and that only if badly corrupt. Australia is noticeably less democratic than the USA is, and most councils are noticeably less partisan than what I’ve seen in the USA.
In my state, most of the municipalities are headed by a First Selectman. Different strokes, and all that.