When should a politician be referred to by their most senior held position, as opposed to strictly their current one?

Question

Sometimes current/former politicians are referred to by their most senior held (previous or current) title, rather than strictly their current title.

For example, in a 2016 Presidential debate, Hillary Clinton was referred to as 'secretary', even though her role of secretary of state ceased 3 years' prior in Feb 2013.

Another example is Barack Obama's current medium profile stating 'President'.

When does the convention of referring to a politician by their most senior held title (rather than strictly their current title only) apply? It contrasts somewhat to some other professions like medicine or finance, where referring to oneself by a previous position can be viewed as inaccurate (e.g. as a doctor or financial planner respectively, if one does not currently hold the said position).

Answer 1

First of all, it is strictly a question of etiquette and protocol. It does not have a justiciable answer that a court could resolve.

Custom and practice would be to always refer to someone by their current title if they currently hold elective or judicial office, and to otherwise refer to someone by their highest title when there is an intent to recognize their prior service as a civil servant or elected official.

There are also standards of etiquette and precedent for which previously held posts are illustrious enough to call for recognition at all. Federal district court judge or Senator or President, yes. Dog catcher, or gymnastics judge or president of the intramural soccer club, not so much.

A good rule of thumb would be that a former title is normally recognized for anyone who would have been addressed "Honorable" while holding the office.

More specific and possibly legally meaningful standards apply to former military officers, but I'm not familiar with those standards.