As most of

you know, the way this newspaper opinion thing works is

like this:

If it's a

"column," what's in there - wisdom, folly

or a smelly mixture - is the fault of the one who

wrote it and, generally, whose face adorns it. And no one

else. Not the columnist's spouse, child, dog or this

newspaper (except for libel purposes, but that's another

issue).

If it's an

"editorial," it will run in the space to the

far left of the adjacent page and, generally, will be

unsigned or have the initials of the editorial writer

(generally, me) at its bottom. That one the whole company

takes responsibility for, because it officially

represents the (da-dum, sound effect) opinion of the

newspaper itself.

Letters to the editor are

just that: opinions expressed by you, our readers. We at

the paper don't necessarily agree or disagree with

letters we print. We just print 'em; they're your

opinions.

There are opinions

expressed by some of our columnists that make me smile;

others make me grit my teeth. We print both kinds. I'm

printing one of the "grit my teeth" kind on the

bottom of Page 4A today.

The writer is one of my

favorite people and favorite writers - our very own

Lifestyle columnist, Sallie Satterthwaite. Normally, she

graces the front of our Weekend section in the Wednesday

paper. Today, for reasons that you will discover during a

quick read, she appears on our main news opinion page,

where all the "heavy" opinions dwell.

Sallie says she is angry

about comments and campaign statements attributed to an

unnamed candidate for Peachtree City Council. The

candidate, transparently, is one Dan Tennant. Herewith, I

take up opposing cudgel on behalf of a man I don't know

(and hadn't even thought much about, until now.)

I do it because the column

opposite veers perilously close to what broadcasters call

a personal attack. The unnamed candidate is accused of

"elitism, racism and anti-semitism." (The old

unaddressed question arises, my liberal friends: Is it

bigoted to hate a bigot?)

I also do so because I seem

to fit Sallie's description of the exclusionary code

culprit: white, male, conservative Christian,

middle-aged.

Now about the first part

raised in the column opposite: party politics in a

"nonpartisan" race. Our gentle columnist sees a

"trend away from an ideology...."

There's the first clue:

We're talking about clashing ideologies here.

Then after the candidate's

campaign is labeled as "the politics of

exclusion," we get that specialty of the national

Democratic Party: an unspecified charge of

"mean-spiritedness."

What that means on the

national level is this: We Democrats are better, more

high-minded, more compassionate, more worthy human beings

than this "mean-spirited" Republican sludge

that mistakenly believes it belongs in our righteous and

elevated assembly.

How does

"self-righteousness" smell?

The column advances the

thesis that "in their wisdom, the founders of

Peachtree City" set up elections without party

labels, and that this "gentleman's agreement"

not to mention party in races has been shockingly

breached by this sludge.

There's no doubt the

founders set that procedure, but whether it qualifies as

wisdom is subject to debate. Seems to me, party

affiliation serves to alert voters of candidates' general

political philosophies, an important element in an

informed electoral decision.

In any so-called

nonpartisan election, I prefer to know whether the

candidates would side with Democrats or Republicans on

many issues. Also, such truth-in-labeling serves to flush

out "stealth" candidates, of whatever political

persuasion.

Now, two phrases seem to

foment indignation: "one of their own" and

"Christian environment."

The unnamed candidate

apparently is saying that an average person should be on

the council, one who shares the values of thousands of

folks who profess to be Christian by showing up for

dozens of worship services every week in Peachtree City

churches.

This - according to

the column at the left - is in reality a code that

means we sludges don't want a Jewish candidate

representing us, or a Black candidate, or even a Hindu

engineer, "and you probably don't even mean the

Catholic."

Pardon me, but that is

multiply wrong, a fatuous leap of ideology-blinded

illogic. The unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion

that announcing one's Christian beliefs is tantamount to

elitism, racism and anti-semitism is offensive and -

if you'll pardon my self-righteous plagiarism -

"mean-spirited."

Now that I've huffed and

puffed about huffery and puffery, I hasten to add that

most candidates everywhere use all kinds of codes to

communicate to people why they should be elected. Mostly,

those codes say, in essence, "I'm one of you. I'm

like you. I hold beliefs similar to yours. I value what

you value. I won't do anything to hurt your interests. I

will try to advance your interests. You can trust

me."

That code can be as simple

as a campaign flyer showing a candidate with family

members participating in an event that is meaningful

locally. Or it can be as complex as a smiling candidate

in the midst of a group of Asian, Indian, Hispanic, Black

and white residents. But it communicates, "This is

your group. I'm for your group."

Everybody plays by those

rules. Just the photos change.

So, please, whether in

Peachtree City or anywhere, think past codes and

ideological knee-jerks. What kind of person do you want

representing you? One from Group A, Group B, Group C? All

of the above? Great. Then vote. But enough of the smelly,

self-righteous sludge, please.

I apologize to our gentle

columnist and similarly situated readers if I seem to

have raised my voice or blown my single low-wattage fuse.

That occasionally happens on these dour opinion pages. We

are all much more genteel and likeable in the Weekend

pages.

<!-------------