While watching the inaugural of Barack Obama as the 44th United States President, I heard something which sounded incongruous.
George Bush, who was still the president, was introduced as the Honorable George Bush.
Being mentioned as the Honorable so-and-so is fine but lacking in dignity for the President.
A mayor of a city or town, a senator, a congressman, a governor and even a college or university president can be introduced as honorable.
But the President of these United States? Isn't that a bit plebeian? Mr.
Bush may not be everyone's favorite but he WAS the President.
Could he not have been mentioned as the Right Honorable George Bush? In the British Commonwealth, a sitting Prime Minister, the Governor-General, the leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of Parliament, the Chief Justice and ex-Prime Minister, ex-Governors General are referred to as the Right Honorable because these people have been leaders of the country either as Heads of State or Heads of Government.
Giving them the honorific Right Honorable distinguishes them from every mayor, senator, et al, who is or has been.
After all, Mr.
Bush was only the 43rd President of this country while there have countless other local and state dignitaries.
But, in a country where a five-year old can address a person many years his senior by the first name, adding the "Right" might be too ostentatious.
In other countries of the world (yes, even in the Western Hemisphere), older people are addressed as Sir or Madam.
In Asia, they are addressed as Uncle, Aunt, and even Father or Mother.
This is not to show blood relationship but just as a sign of respect.
Poor Mr.
Bush was not even accorded this small modicum of respect on his last day.
If he had had a Ph.
D.
, at least he would have been called Dr.
Bush.
My parents would have had an apoplectic fit if I had addressed any of their friends (or any elderly person for that matter) by his or her first name.
Well, Mr.
Bush, people will still address you as Mr.
President for the rest of your life.