R.E.S.P.E.C.T.?

I had a call where an elected official was chewing on my backside.

Did I write and ridicule his personal foibles? No. Did I expose the receipt of campaign funds from a questionable source? No. Did I sharpen my keyboard and just let fly with a harsh dose of personal indignation? Again, no.

What was the transgression that supposedly earned me this officeholder's wrath?

As I understand it, it wasn't any of those. Apparently, I authored something recently where this person was mentioned among a laundry list of others, and in writing something which I thought was complimentary, the crime I’m apparently guilty of was failing to show him sufficient respect equal to those he considers his peers.

What? Was he kidding?

It reminds me of a story when I was working in the State Republican office these many years ago. It was summer, and the party's Executive Director who has since gone on to much bigger and better things was speaking casually to a legislator of some rank over the telephone. After the ED addressed him by his first name, this legislator rebuffed him, and asked that he be addressed as "Representative."

Upon the retelling of the incident, as eyes rolled, the general consensus was that the legislator was a bit full of himself.

Another incident I had was at home, where my mom got a call in a demanding tone about something she was selling at auction from Senator "____." When she asked me about it, my reply was "Senator ____? She hasn’t held office for 6 years, and she’s still calling herself Senator? Give me a break."

So are elected officials forever entitled to respect for having achieved office?

Proper decorum in correspondence has us addressing elected officials with respect as "the honorable" which as far as I can tell is a holdover from how the children of barons, viscounts and earls were addressed in Great Britain. According to Wikipedia:

In the United Kingdom, all sons and daughters of viscounts and barons and the younger sons of earls are styled with this prefix. The style is only a courtesy one, however, and on legal documents they are described as, for instance, John Smith, Esq., commonly called The Honourable John Smith. As the wives of sons of peers share the titles of their husbands, the wives of the sons of viscounts and barons and the younger sons of earls are known as, e.g., The Hon. Mrs John Smith.

Since those days of yore, the term has evolved. In America, we use it for anyone who has been elected to public office at any level of government. So, technically, an elected member of the local water board is as worthy of the honorific as a legislator.

But that still doesn't answer the question whether or not they are automatically and permanently deserving of the respect such a term would imply.

In the rough and tumble world of partisan politics, we don't talk of respect very often. We talk much more of accountability to the people who put them in that office, the voters. It's probably because we’ve eschewed royalty in favor of our democratic system of government.

Demand respect? It’s always been my opinion that if such nonsense was tried in a public forum, they'd be chewed up mercilessly by an electorate who would treat such behavior with ridicule.

As a society, generally if we give respect, it is for noteworthy accomplishment. We give it for bravely facing challenges. We give it for contributing to scholarship and enriching the human condition. We give it for striving for truth, no matter the personal cost. We give it for facing great odds and winning.

And that begs a question - Is an election any of those? Is the accomplishment of achieving electoral victory over another the measure of a man, or is accomplishment based on what you do with the block of marble you're given (via the electoral process) to chisel your mark into?

I probably have a jaded view. I've worked with and I am friends with many candidates. And as such, I see their feet of clay. Before they're in office, and during, I see them in their sweat clothes, with messy houses, locking their keys in the car, with bad breath and frayed clothes, in and out of relationships, wrangling with kids, etc. So I've seen their humanity in its pure and rawest form. One pant leg at a time.

Is it possible that seeing that overly human side automatically makes me write off such requests for respect as unnecessary pomposity? Or should I take the criticism and consider myself justifiably rebuffed?

What say you, the reader? Am I too disrespectful towards those who have earned electoral office? Or is a dose of reality for those who sometimes lose touch with it a good thing?

With all due respect, the floor is yours.