By CAL BEVERLY
Publisher

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.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page