We don’t call a PhD holder “mister doctor”, we simply call them “doctor”. Does the same apply with “president”?
Nope, Mr. President is the standard form of address, going back (I think) to Washington, or if not him, pretty close. For what it’s worth, in German a university professor with a doctorate would be called by Herr Doktor Professor.
“Mr. President” is the proper form *in direct address *in public situations (and in private unless invited by the President to call him by a different style). Its usage matches exactly where one would use “Your Honor” to a Judge, “Your Excellency” to an Ambassador, etc. It was chosen over “Your Excellency” and other honorifics to be courteous yet not overly deferential at the time of Washington’s presidency.
It’s used only ‘at’ the sitting President; ex-presidents would be addressed in other ways (“President Bush” or “President Clinton” is the modern usage; precisionists in etiquette hold that an ex-president relinquishes title with office and would prefer “Governor Bush” and “Governor clinton” [“Congressman Ford” and “Senator Nixon” if they were still around, the idea being to use the highest title other than President).
You do not use “President Obama” in direct address, and “Mr. President Obama” is as solecistic as “Queen Elizabeth Windsor”. But in speaking of the sitting President in third person, or of a President of something other than the U.S.A., “President Obama” (or “President Calderon” for Mexico) is the proper form.
Wouldn’t Ford and Nixon both be Vice President?
Assumedly, that title would also have been relinquished.
But, then, where do you stop? It would seem logical that Governor or Senator should also be relinquished when the person is no longer serving in that capacity.
BTW, I hate it when people refer to our current president as “Mr. Obama”. In almost all cases where it would be proper to refer to someone as a Mister, it is also proper to reference their title. Thus, when I see the title, I tend to hear the condescending version.
I think the NYT calls every man in politics Mr. almost all the time. I have no problem with Mr. Obama, nor did I object to Mr. Bush. Everybody knows who he is, you don’t need to include the title all that often.
Journalistic convention is that President _____ is used the first time in an article, and Mr. _____ is used thereafter.
Not all publications follow this formula, but many do. It goes back a long time.
The New York Times uses Mr. for every male name.
The Associated Press changed its style last year. It used to be “President Smith” on first reference, but it was changed to “President Joe Smith”. Then “Smith” of other references.
I think the rule is actually the highest non-unique title the person held. Bill Clinton can’t be “President Clinton”, because there’s only one President, and Al Gore can’t be “Vice-President Gore”, because there’s only one Vice-President. But Clinton can be “Governor Clinton”, because there’s more than one governor.
Actually the NYT uses the style I outlined above. Here’s the first few sentences from an article published today:
This is my personal usage. It takes little more effort to say “Mr. Bush” than “Bush” and IMO it helps raise the tone of discourse. (Admittedly, I will use GWB or GHWB where there might be cause for confusion, as also JFK and EMK if speaking of the late President Kennedy and his brother, the recently deceased Senator, or FDR and TR for the two Roosevelts [and ER when she figures into the disscussion] – but these are for clarification between individuals, not slurs.)
I defy anyone to find any superciliousness in “Mr. Obama’s policies, while disliked by many Republicans, seem to have been lauded by world governments far more than Mr. Bush’s were.” And while “President” might be substituted for “Mr.” in both instances, it could get cloying after the seventh reference to a president’s policies.
This is one reason why absolutely nobody other than a few who must scrupulously adhere to the most formal etiquette pays any attention to this now rightly ignored “rule.” President Clinton is fine for every usage today and President Ford or Nixon were and are fine in reference to them.
Mr. Clinton, Bush, or Nixon is also completely correct in all contexts. I don’t understand where the sudden attacks on this usage have come from. I only started seeing them in the past year.
The use of Mr. President does, indeed, date back to Washington. In fact, it was his preference over the more “majestic” titles that were proposed.
In writing (not direct correspondance) I tend to use LastName#, as in Obama44, Bush43, Clinton42, Bush41, Reagan40, Carter39, Ford38, Nixon37, Johnson36, Kennedy35, Eisenhower34, Truman33, Roosevelt32,…They’re easy to track that way.
In a formal setting it would be polite to use in direct conversation would, I suppose, be “Mister President…” at least initially. I suppose that if you constantly work/talk with the guy that would get old. At some point, depending on your relationship or paygrade, there would be some sort of standard usage. I really don’t see his Chief of Staff "Mister President"ing him, and I don’t see the Marine One staircase marines saying anything, if anything, more than “Sir”…
As for the NYT, grrrr. You could have some standard schmo MD getting “Doctored” constantly, but then a prominent scientist with only a PhD getting “Mistered” to death, even when the context directly relates to their area of expertise. And it’s NASA, NYT, not Nasa.
So how do you refer to Cleveland?
Cleveland22 or Cleveland24, depending on the context 
, but he’s been dead awhile and there isn’t much that would bring him into a conversation. But it is interesting that some POTUSes serve in non-sequential terms…if I were strict about it, I’d have to subtract one from everybody at McKinley forward, but that would be … odd.
The President of the United States is syled “His Excellency” in very formal diplomatic protocol (as is standard for non-royal heads of state) and letters of credence and recall. Several state governors (New England and Pennsylvania for example) are styled “His (or Her) Excellency” as a holdover from when they were still colonies.
Slightly related, but not quite. On the Good Morning America ticker (scrolling across the bottom of the screen), they refer to Obama as “Mr. Obama” but Biden as “Vice President Biden”… is there a reason for this?
John Adams wanted a much more glorious elevated title for the President. He didn’t get it, 'cause that’s not how we roll in these here United States.
I read somewhere that when the Senate first met, Adams wanted to decide the proper mode of address for the Vice President. Somebody mockingly suggested “His Rotundity”.
I’d think that being strict would require you to use the numbers as officially recorded. Also, it’s not some – Cleveland is the only one so far to serve non-consecutive terms of the Presidency. It’s not uncommon in Congress, of course, but that’s a different matter.