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

I originally sent this comment as an E-mail message and Grant asked me to share my thoughts on the board --

I wanted to respond to the discussion you had recently regarding what would be the proper form for addressing or referring to Bill Clinton in the event that Hillary Clinton is elected president. I really liked Grant's conclusion that he should simply be called Mr. Clinton.

I have been thinking about the broader issue surrounding this question for some time now and I have developed some strong feelings and I would be curious regarding your thoughts.

I believe that people in general are used to and comfortable with the idea of giving deference to people that they regard as their leaders or superiors. However, I don't think that people have really thought through what this means in a democratic society. I believe strongly that the people we choose or who are appointed to positions of responsibility are not our leaders; rather, they are our employees, our subordinates, if you will. And in that respect, they should be the ones offering deference to members of the general public, not the other way around.

I really believe the idea that positions of public trust give the office holder a right to an elevated status or a title or honorific of some sort is a true violence visited upon the spirit of democracy.

These are the things that I find particularly offensive (going from least offensive to most offensive):

1. The conversion of the name of an office or a job title into an honorific. For example, I would prefer Mr. Bush, Ms. Rice, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Pelosi, and Mr. Roberts rather than President Bush, Secretary Rice, Senator Clinton, Speaker Pelosi, and Chief Justice Roberts. I realize that in some cases -- particularly in writing -- it is a convenient shorthand to use a job title as a personal title. However, I believe there is absolutely no excuse when you are addressing a person face-to-face. In particular, journalists, the guardians of democracy, should not (during press conferences, for instance) be granting this kind of deference to a person whose performance they are supposed to be monitoring. Furthermore, I believe that such job titles should be left in lower case, to emphasize the point. Thus -- "Mr. Bush, the U.S. president ..."

2. The continued use of a title once a person has left office. This smacks of a kind of title of nobility, another thing that is, or should be, anathema to democracy. (I don't agree with the point that only one person is due the honorific of "President." I believe that no one is due such an honorific. However, if such an honorific is used, I don't believe any one fellow citizen should be granted the kind of elevation implied by exclusive use.)

3. The granting of a title merely because a person is the spouse or other relative of a person who holds public office. In this respect, I find the use of the term "First Lady" not only undemocratic but also condescending to women in general. Women should neither expect nor be granted honors of any kind based on the identity of the persons who might share their beds (and vice versa for that matter). One reason to hope for Hillary Clinton's election is the possibility that, as Grant suggested, Bill Clinton might put an end to this nonsense.

4. The addressing of people who hold offices such as attorney general and surgeon general as "General So-and-So." This gets my biggest raspberry not only because it is offensive, but also because it just sounds stupid. Give me a break. They're not generals.

In re: your first post: AM, are you for real? 'Cause you're scarin' me, honey…

Grant? Martha? Help!!!!!!! :0

I elect to decline, Ms.

Egalitarianism is a relative idea: no two people are equal in every aspect.

I'm not in any way suggesting a dictatorship, but with high offices come high duties, many of which are too much for most of us. I don't see anything wrong with showing respect for someone who dedicates his/her time to making a nation more beneficial to all. I like the term “President”. And I'll bet you there are several sane individuals who do too. You'll notice that the mere bestowal of a title upon someone is no damage to your ego, unless that's all you have…

I don't see how hiring versus electing makes a key difference here and my position doesn't depend on that distinction. In any case, the only conceptual difference between "hiring" and "electing" (literally, "choosing") is that in the first place, one or a small number of people hold the authority to "hire" whereas all citizens hold the authority to participate in the "election." In both cases, some body of persons makes a choice as to who will serve in a position of responsibility.

The basis of my thought here is that conceptually speaking a democracy is essentially an egalitarian program (that is, egalitarianism is essential to democracy) and thus positions of responsibility must not confer higher status on an individual, relative to ordinary citizens.

Furthermore, I don't see the distinction you make between executives and legislators. Indeed, it seems to me that the authors of the Constitution believed that the legislature was the superior body. Whether that is true (clearly, the Constitution sees the legislature at the very least as being equal to the executive), I think that the idea that the executive represents some kind of elevated status (whether over the legislature or over the public) is one that has resulted in concrete harm to democratic values.

I also don't believe that government should be run like a business. Government should be run as a service to the public and as a vehicle for collective action. "We elect them to lead the government of the day," and that is a service to the public ... serves the public ... literally (in my mind) as a servant (subordinate) to the public. If they fail to serve adequately, they may be removed.

AM said:
I don't know why this has to become personal.

Who says it does? I was using “you” in the general sense. The way French uses “on” (we or one). If your (your very own; i.e., you, AM) ego is not at issue, then don't bring it up…

As for your other claims, I'm afraid I'm just not seeing eye-to-eye with you…

You should consider starting your own blog as a means of venting your anger on this pig-headed phallocratic republic. Because, as it is, you're making no headway here. We've seemingly reached a stalemate. Plus, let's not neglect the other threads in this topic…

Yes, you are wrong. 🙂

I too have heard "piker" as a term to describe a sort of country bumpkin, though it was more derogatory, what Grant calls a "fightin' word". It came up when I was living in Ireland as an alternative to "knacker" (when I asked what that term meant) A piker was described to me as a (usually white) person who lives in a trailer, has many cars rusting on the front lawn, and does not want to work for a living.

There was an implication of criminality, they were often described as thieves. The term seemed to equate to what would have been called "white trash" where I'm from in southern Indiana.

"Knacker" was the hip or young version of the term, whereas "piker" might have been used by their parents.

Interestingly, since I returned home, I've noticed that the term is being adopted by young people in Northern Ireland and England (seen on myspace and similar public forums), and used subversively to describe themselves when they're living a sort of "starving artist" lifestyle. It's seen as a sort of "street cred" title, particularly for those in the punk rock community.

I'm from a tiny one-stoplight town called Nineveh. Well, really, we had one flashin' light, but the bulb burned out about 7 years ago, so you're just supposed to know to stop now 😛 We're about 30 minutes from Nashville and 45 minutes from Bloomington and Indiana University (I grew up always having to qualify, I'll be impressed if you've heard of it).

Coming from such a small town, I had to wonder if I was a "knacker" which prompted the conversation in Ireland...

To answer your question, in my experience "piker" was a term that had been adopted by the youth to describe themselves, whereas "knacker" was still viewed as derogatory. According to the kids "round the pub" knackers are not socially aware enough to know that they are being described as such.

This last bit, mind you, came from a very small group of kids ages 12-28 in a TINY town in western Ireland (less than 75 people) --in larger cities such as Galway, the definition varied just a bit and the word knacker was completely unknown in Northern Ireland. I'd be curious to hear a native speaker's take on the issue.