For those who follow the etiquette angle of the news -- that would be Miss Manners herself, alone out of the entire population -- the election has been running along pretty much as expected. More's the pity.

As an opening salvo, all candidates everywhere always attack Washington. This unprovoked aggression against Miss Manners' dear little hometown distresses her. She has been told that it is because everyone in Washington behaves so badly.

Surely not everyone, she pleads. Surely not the native population, of which she humbly offers herself as a paragon of politeness. Others, perhaps -- but then where did they come from?

We see the answer as the election season progresses. The traditional next step is that all candidates declare that they will not run negative campaigns. They are above that sort of thing, and besides, they have been told that the voters dislike it.

To highlight their civility, they point out how much restraint it takes to refrain from attacking their opponents, since these individuals happen to be liars, cheats and masters of incompetence.

At that point, the floodgates open and out pour all sorts of invectives, insults and insinuations. And Miss Manners waits for the political consequences of violating the public's declared standard to eliminate, if not discourage, rude candidates.

But no. Having declared on the side of civility, the public begins ridiculing anyone who continues to practice it. A candidate who observes the rules of courteous debate is said to be acting as if attending a -- chortle, chortle -- tea party. (Tea is thought to be the opiate of the terminally polite, rendering them unfit for any real-life activity.)

Worse, polite behavior is diagnosed as a sign of moral indifference. A person who really felt passionately about his or her ideals would not be capable of maintaining an amiable, respectful manner toward someone who did not share them, it is thought. Thus rudeness becomes the hallmark of virtue.

And many of the rude get elected. By this time, Miss Manners notes, there are few others among whom to choose.

In the flush of victory, winners often promise a new era of civility. They are going to elevate the tone in Washington. But the success of their rude campaign techniques serves as a reminder that no matter what the voters say, they appreciate being represented by someone who packs a forceful snarl and has a blunt way of challenging opposition.

Yet when things get nasty, those fickle voters start complaining again about the rudeness in Washington. So in keeping with prevailing notions of spreading love, an attempt is made to instill civility according to the peculiar but prevailing belief that people who know one another well are bound to be kind to one another. Off the offenders go on a pleasant boondoggle, getting to be friends.

If this actually worked, and political opponents suppressed their differences in the interest of pleasing one another, the result would be cronyism, which exists at the expense of their constituencies. That is not an acceptable solution.

The only way a government works is when its officials learn to remain civil while airing their disagreements so that they can reach workable compromises. Campaigns serve as demonstrations of how well the candidates can do that.

So if the folks in Washington are rude, whose fault is that?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I think that in the world of mega-philanthropy, the donation of large amounts of money by the rich and famous to endow edifices dedicated to themselves, is offensive. These are usually opera houses, museums or similar institutions frequented only by others in their own social stratum.

GENTLE READER: But it is so hard to persuade the poor to endow public institutions.

So while it is true that the fastidious should adhere to the policy of memorializing the dead, rather than their lively selves, we take what we can get.

Fortunately, it is not hard to get the poor to take advantage of this largesse. Miss Manners assures you that if you were to visit museums and opera houses, you would find them filled with people who are distinguished by their interests, not their incomes.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: A year ago, I was invited to my boyfriend's family member's bridal shower on an invitation sent to his mom at his house (I do not live there with them). I was never made aware of the invitation (my boyfriend forgot to tell me), and therefore did not attend.

I found out at the wedding that I was invited to the shower and had missed it. Now I have been invited to another member's shower in the same manner, but this time my boyfriend informed me of the occasion.

I'm glad I actually found out about the event this time around, but was a little upset by the way they have gone about inviting me. Is this appropriate? I feel like they must not care much to have me there if they can't even take the time to get my address and send me my own invitation.

GENTLE READER: This is a version of what Miss Manners thinks of as the Appendage Invitation. That horrid designation "and guest," which is stuck on otherwise formal invitations, is in the same category. It means "bring someone along if you feel like it, and we don't much care who it is."

If you want to make a point of this, Miss Manners suggests taking it up with the gentleman in question. Leaving aside whether he actually delivers such invitations to you, you could ask him to request the family to invite you directly. Or you could just not attend these events, taking the gamble that he or they will miss you enough to figure out that they never quite invited you.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My mother and I were wondering what a woman's role is in this day and age (feminine liberation) during the playing of the national anthem.

I am an active-duty soldier, so my role is clear. I salute. But as a civilian, my mother is confused. When she was growing up, it was proper for men to remove their hats and place them over their hearts. Women kept their hats on, and covered their hearts with their hand.

After attending several of my military functions, my mother has been berated by many people for not removing her headgear during the national anthem. She has been involved in many heated arguments about this topic, and we thought it would be best to write to you, because she isn't so sure that she is right anymore.

GENTLE READER: In rushing to defend your mother against those who are rude enough to berate her, Miss Manners was picturing a dear lady wearing a pretty afternoon dress with a flowered hat. Then it occurred to her that your mother, however dear, might have happened to be wearing a workout suit and a baseball cap.

It makes a difference. There is no change in the rule that a lady does not remove her ladylike hat. But the rule does not apply to unisex hats, as you know in regard to your uniform. Such hats must be removed during the national anthem and not worn indoors.

However, the rule against berating others applies to everyone and it is not subject to change.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have just hosted the fourth get-together with friends and work acquaintances where invitations clearly stated BYOB and no one brought any beverages.

In college and the years just after, when we wanted to have a party, someone would volunteer their house or apartment for the place and everyone would bring something to eat and something to drink. Those were the days of the "What do I bring besides chips and dips?" quandary. Occasionally, there would be a get-together where someone would provide, for example, a keg of beer, and everyone would bring something to go on the barbecue grill. There were always a few who neglected to provide for themselves, but others' generosity covered them and a good time was had by all.

More recently, I have offered both place and food for socializing. I clean the house, and I plan, purchase, prepare and present food for a number of people and their partners, parents and occasional guests. On the invitation it is clearly stated BYOB -- and yet I find myself leaving my party to make a frantic run to the closest grocery store for beverages.

We are all in the same socioeconomic strata. I have taken care of the expense and trouble of the food. Yet purchasing a liter bottle of soda or a six-pack of beer seems to be asking too much.

I have tried to let it go, but it is really beginning to bother me and I do not wish to think ill of anyone. I cannot afford to supply everything all the time and do not wish to discontinue socializing. Please advise me.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners' advice is to face the fact that you and your peers have outgrown the BYOB party. This is a collegiate and internship form, suitable for people who have not yet mastered adult housekeeping and whose finances are so close to the edge that they cannot wait for the costs of socializing to be shared through eventual reciprocation.

True, your guests should not have accepted your invitation without accepting the terms you stated. But as you seem to have violated the social terms shared by your circle, let us call it a draw. The way to entertain them without buying drinks is to invite your guests to brunch, a picnic or tea.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: The impending Fourth of July holiday, and all of the patriotic delicacies included with it, happen to fall right in the middle of the restrictive phase of a diet that I am participating in.

I have been invited to a barbecue and would like to go; however, I am convinced that there will not be any food there that I am allowed to eat. Would it be rude to bring my own food that is acceptable for my diet, or should I take my chances with the food that is there?

GENTLE READER: Neither. Democracy only works when people can pursue their individual needs and desires without violating the prerogatives of others. Miss Manners knows a simple way for you to eat your own food without usurping the hosts' function of providing food: Eat before you go.

: