Something that bugs me about the president

[someoneyouknow]

No, not the con artist we're dealing with, I mean all presidents. Maybe it's just me and my way of thinking (perish the thought!) but when someone like Obama is no longer president I don't think they should be referred to as "president". The same with Bush, Clinton and so on.

For example, in a recent article about Obama's reaction to Trump's lie about wiretapping they referred to him as President Obama.

There is only one president at a time in this country so anyone else should be referred to as former president XXXXXX.

I realize this seems at odds with someone who has attained the rank of general or admiral, they are still referred to as general or admiral when meeting them or in the written word, but to me, because of how this country was founded and how the Founding Fathers went about making sure there were no titles of nobility and such, to me, someone who has left the office of president should not be referred to as president even though they were at one time.

Maybe it was the way this particular article was written, but I've seen it done on numerous occasions throughout the decades.

This is the article in question which starts with exactly what I am talking about:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretapping/index.html

Am I wrong in this? Thoughts?

 

[sr71plt]

It's an honorific granted to several public offices. Former senators, representatives, cabinet members, ambassadors, and governors are referred to this way too. It's usual to include "former" in front of the name, but it's sometimes dropped in trying to be brief. Throughout the campaign, for instance, Hillary Clinton, was called "Secretary Clinton," (she would have just as well been called Senator Clinton, but they usually use the highest title achieved--a cabinet position is national; a senator position is less than that, but with an edge of national) and, in fact, that's officially the polite way to do it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's really not what the FFs meant by a "title of nobility" if you had to earn it and your offspring can't inherit it. (In the UK they now have "life peerages" that fit that description, but such did not exist in 1787).

 

[oggbashan]

We don't do that in the UK except for Admirals of the Fleet and Field Marshals who retain the rank (on the reserve list) until death.

Former Prime Ministers are 'former'. Former Chancellors of the Exchequer and other former cabinet ministers do not retain the title. We tend to 'kick them upstairs' i.e. to the House of Lords as Barons. Some won't go like Sir Winston Churchill. He stayed in the House of Commons as long as he physically could.

 

[someoneyouknow]

It's an honorific granted to several public offices. Former senators, representatives, cabinet members, ambassadors, and governors are referred to this way too. It's usual to include "former" in front of the name, but it's sometimes dropped in trying to be brief. Throughout the campaign, for instance, Hillary Clinton, was called "Secretary Clinton," (she would have just as well been called Senator Clinton, but they usually use the highest title achieved--a cabinet position is national; a senator position is less than that, but with an edge of national) and, in fact, that's officially the polite way to do it.

I understand that, and that was what I was getting at. They were president or Secretary of State but they are no longer. If Hillary were introduced as Secretary of State, or even Senator, that is not correct. She is the former XXXXX. Someone else now occupies that position.

There can be only one, to use a phrase.

Again, it's probably just me. Not a big deal.

 

[someoneyouknow]

It's really not what the FFs meant by a "title of nobility" if you had to earn it and your offspring can't inherit it. (In the UK they now have "life peerages" that fit that description, but such did not exist in 1787).

True, and maybe that was a bit off point, but I was using that in reference to there being only one president at a time. If Obama was attending a gathering overseas and was introduced as President Obama, that is not correct and may cause confusion to those who aren't aware of how things are done in this country.

Some people may think we have two presidents or that Obama and Trump are vying for power.

As I said in my previous post, it's probably just me. Just wanted to throw it out to see others opinions on this. To me, the person is always former XXXX.

As a side note, a former general or admiral could, in theory, be called back into service so them retaining their title is fine. Neither Obama or Bush or Clinton could become president again.

 

[sr71plt]

I agree with you that to really be correct "former" should be tacked onto the front of the honorific. I don't think it's usually an intentional political statement when it isn't.

 

[Rick345]

Some people may think we have two presidents or that Obama and Trump are vying for power.

As I said in my previous post, it's probably just me. Just wanted to throw it out to see others opinions on this. To me, the person is always former XXXX.

I have to side with tradition on this, Presidents even long dead presidents Lincoln, Washington, for example are often referred to as President Lincoln, President Washington without confusion. I think people world wide pretty much know the Trump is now president and Obama was president of the good ol' USA.

In fact if I made reference to Obummer or president Rump 99.9% of people would know who I am referring to, after all its a very small club so there's not much room for error. In fact 99% of persons who was once president are often realized by the mere mention of their last last name or just their initials FDR, LBJ or Truman for example, like I said its a small club only 44 members so far.