Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

I agree that any two members of our society deserve mutual respect. But I have trouble agreeing with the idea that public officials are merely employees and don't deserve deferential forms of address, simply because they are employees of the public. They are employees that have often been given a “governing” (I prefer “governing” to “ruling”) responsibility and authority. The respect shown to the person should be common to all people, but there should be uncommon respect shown to the office of those who have been given special oversight of the common welfare.

It looks like we're just not going to agree on this. From my point of view, a democratic system demands that we not engage in courtesies that grants public officials a higher status than other citizens, and that includes any and all forms of deference.

Surely, if they do not have uncommon ability to perform the office, worthy of respect, they should not be in the office.

This bit makes no sense to me. First, respect and deference are not the same thing. As I said before, respect is easily shown with common courtesy and requires no forms of deference.

Second, "ability to perform the office" is something that we the public hope for, but is not something that is necessarily present. Furthermore, ability bears no relationship to forms of deference.

In what circumstance?

A patient interacting with a physician who is acting in his capacity as a physician (or between two physicians acting in their professional capacities), or a student interacting with the holder of a doctorate degree who is acting in an academic capacity (or between two academics, in their professional capacities) — I see no problem with the use of “doctor” as a mode of address in these situations.

I see no reason to use “doctor” for the holder of a public office in a democratic system who is acting in his or her capacity as a public official. It seems somewhat less offensive to me than “president,” “chief justice,” “the honorable,” etc., because it's not directly based upon the office. However, I would prefer to avoid any appearance of deference. A public official should be content with Mr./Mrs./Ms., titles that all members of the society may rightfully claim.