Then why are they repeated when it is already clear what the job is? And why are they used in direct address – do they need to be reminded what their jobs are? And why are they used by retired officials?
Clearly, there’s more to it than that.
I see absolutely no legitimate reason why a journalist interviewing the president should address the president as “Mr. President” instead of “Mr. Bush.” I see no reason why Jimmy Carter (or whoever) should continue to be referred to as “President Carter” 25 years after he has left office. The holding of an office in our democratic republic should not entitle the holder to an honorific (other than ones that any citizen could use, like “Mr.”), especially one that continues after he or she has completed service.
This was around 25 years ago, and in CA, at a State Univ. Many of the Prof’s *insisted *you call them by their first name. Some wore sandals, if you get what I am saying. I remember one having a PhD, and since he had the same name as another Instructor (no PhD) he had us call him “Doc”. But never “Doctor Jones”.
I only called my Pysch Prof by “Doctor” but he had an MD.
But since then, when meeting a Colleg Prof, I have only used “professor” and never had a problem, but honestly, it was always “Well, Professor Smith…” “No, no, call me Bob”. I am middle aged, and a Professional myself, so maybe that makes a difference.
I only called one PhD “Doctor” but that was at her PhD grad party.
As it happens, I’m a Kentucky Colonel, as is the fellow lawyer who nominated me. We sometimes will jokingly refer to each other in a drawled “How you doin’, Cunnel?” but never in court. I know another lawyer who’s a JAG lawyer in the Ohio Natl. Guard, and he actually is a colonel, so I refer to him as that as a courtesy, although he laughs and tells me I don’t have to. There was a scene in Inherit the Wind where the local folk bestow the title “Colonel” on the (thinly-veiled) Bryan character; the Darrow character good-naturedly insists that he receive the same title so as not to appear less trustworthy or respectable to the jury.
I think in written correspondence, placing “Atty.” before or “Esq.” after the name of a lawyer is simply a courtesy. I agree that only a pompous boob would put “Esq.” after his or her own name in correspondence, on business cards, etc. (a SDMB username is something else again, though!). Judges and magistrates are entitled to “Hon.” before their names in correspondence. In court, I refer to the lawyers who appear before me as “Mr. Smith,” “counselor,” or “counsel for the defense,” but typically not as “Attorney Smith.” I’ve heard it done, though.
I agree with acsenray that it’s annoying for someone out of office in a republic to keep using the title until death. When George H.W. Bush ran for president in 1980 he was commonly referred to as “Ambassador,” a title he hadn’t held for several years. Joe Kennedy Sr. did the same for decades after leaving the embassy in London. A more worthy example is Harry Truman, who said that after he left the White House he looked forward to reclaiming the proudest title of all, that of ordinary U.S. citizen, simply as “Mr. Truman.”
I believe there is a standard protocol for which titles are retained after retirement. I personally don’t have a problem calling a retired General “General” or a retired physician “Doctor.” IIRC, “Senator” is properly retained after leaving office, but “President” is not. I have no idea why, and I don’t know what the newspapers’ style guides say.
Speaking of outmoded signs of privilege, I just saw The Queen with Helen Mirren, and I’m feeling quite anti-republican at the moment. I think it could do our own (US) heads of government some good to have to bow and scrape to someone occasionally.
Might be that while quite a few people can be Generals and Senators, at any given moment, only one man can be President. At least, that’s what my brain popped up as a theory.
