Is It Anti-Democratic to Address Former Elected Officials by Their Former Titles?

By Michael Bryan

"Speaker" Gingrich. "Governor" Romney. "Senator" Santorum. None of these are accurate descriptions. Excuse me while I crank on about this topic for a bit.

Gingrich was bounced by a palace coup and wound up paying huge fines for ethical violations. Romney hasn't governed a state since 2007. Santorum lost his Senate seat in an 18 point blowout.

So, why do we insist on addressing politicians with the title of the highest political office they have attained… for the rest of their lives? In the case of Presidents I can sort of see the logic. They inhabited the single office in which the sovereign dignity of the nation resides. I'll let them slide. But these others…?

Some would argue that this is just a convention of proper etiquette. It's the way we afford respect to those who have served their communities through elected office. It's no big deal, and perfectly legitimate.

As you might expect, I think otherwise. I think it insidiously undermines our democratic values and culture.

Such arrogation of titles is certainly an effective way for politicians to market themselves and a means to quickly place a candidate within the political heirarchy for a busy and distracted public. But it undermines the essential democratic value that the truly highest office in the land is that of Citizen.

Use of former titles is a means of insulating the bearer from the need for their views and opinions to stand on their own merit: they are the opinions of a former Senator or Governor or High Muckety-Muck, who are we mere Citizens to question them?

Political tiles place the bearer in a putatively superior position to their fellow Citizens. If they are actively inhabiting that elective office, the title does accurately reflect that some prevailing segment of the electorate placed them in a position of leadership. But if they are no longer in office, it merely signals status and public support that does not reflect current reality. Often it masks a well-earned public opprobium, as in the case of Gingrich and Santorum.

This use of former office titles strikes me as an end run around the prohibition of titles of nobility, and is motivated by much the same social impetus behind noble titles.

In America, we have a Constitutional ban on titles of nobility. Congress cannot grant them, officeholders cannot accept them, and foriegners cannot naturalize unless they renounce them. There is a reason behind this. Our Founders did not want to allow a hereditary nobility to entrench themselves in our political institutions. They did not wish American polticians to be able to claim dignities and social status they had not earned, and seek to translate those honors into democratic support.

I grant that there is a big difference between noble titles and the unwarranted use of former poltical titles; for one, noble titles are heritable, and poltical titels aren't. But how much political mileage does Ben Quayle derive from his daddy's life-long title of Mr. Vice-President? A lot. Perhaps enough to bring him through a bruising 10-way primary, even after his debut as Brock Landers, celebrity douchebag.

Leaving aside any inter-generational effect of such titles, however, how does their habitual use affect the titleholder? A lot.

Imagine if Gingrich couldn't hide his past behind the simple and flattering sobriquet of "Speaker". Imagine if Sarah Palin, for her single abortive term as Alaska's chief exec, could not claim the title "Governor" Palin. What if Santorum couldn't claim the dignity of "Senator"? If these folks couldn't rely on the instant respect and dignity conferred upon them by the title of an office they no longer hold, would Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Santorum, and Mrs. Palin be taken as seriously in our political life? I don't think they would. Though, I confess, even with their titles, I don't understand the respect they are afforded.

One might argue that such office titles were earned through the democratic process, so why be concerned? Because the democratic process is constant. Yesterday's electoral success does not, and should not, ensure tomorrow's.

It is the voting public's privilege to turn an officeholder out. Retaining the title ignores that constant process of creative destruction that is the essence of democratic politics. Retaining the title improperly retains a portion of the dignity and power confered upon the holder of the office by the electorate. The office and the voters bestow that dignity; it does not belong to the person inhabiting the office, that person is only borrowing it. Hopefully that person will use it wisely to serve the public. Retaining any portion of that dignity when the term is over is illegitimate in a democratic society, and deeply self-serving.

Finally, there is title creep. Nowadays, I hear even former U.S. Representatives and Mayors referred to by their former titles. If you are going to flatter former highly placed officials with use of their former titles, shouldn't the same respect be afforded to lower ranking officers? Where is the cut off? I even see members of state houses referred to, or referring to themselves, as "Senator" and "Representative," even when they are out of office, and especially when running for a new one.

The hubris and pride inherent in such titles brings to mind me of The Office's Angela Martin constantly referring to her beau who serves in the state house as "The Senator". At least he's actually in office. How ridiculous would that title be once her closeted Sentator becomes just another closeted lobbyist?

If you want me to take you seriously, come to me seeking office as Mr. or Mrs. Smith, Citizen of the United States, not as a puffed-up tile.