It seems un-American to have etiquette restrictions on discussing politics informally, among friends, colleagues and anyone else who will stand still long enough. How else are the citizens supposed to thrash out the plethora of complex issues of our time and arrive at judicious and reasoned decisions?

Well, we could study one another's T-shirts and bumper stickers. We could glean understanding from those who shout down candidates before anyone hears what they have to say, and those who start cheering them before anyone hears what they have to say. Or we can just snap out opinions at one another, and remark upon the stupidity of anyone who doesn't agree.

Since this is what we do anyway, it strikes Miss Manners that etiquette hardly needs to caution that political conversation can be volatile. Conversation? What conversation?

When was the last time you heard political talk that included such phrases as "You do have a point there" or "I hadn't thought of that" or "Tell me more about how that would work"?

Miss Manners can sense the derision felt for these wimpy statements. Why would you say such things unless you didn't know what you were talking about? Anyway, you don't win by making the other person look smart. And you certainly don't win by showing yourself to be so unsure of your beliefs that you can be talked out of them.

She doesn't doubt that this assessment is true for people who are running for office. What puzzles her is why the electorate is more interested in demonstrating that it already knows everything than in delving for information and exchanging ideas.

Perhaps it is because we are so used to observing and participating in conflicts in which sides are chosen ahead of time, anything short of total endorsement constitutes disloyalty, and the object is to win. In law, sports, debates, and business and international negotiations, partisanship is a given.

Even then, the particular rules that apply mandate that each side be allotted a fair chance, limit the tactics that can be used, and require a show of respect for the opposition and for the presiding authority. No one believes that this represents true open-mindedness, but the forms provide order and dignity that prevent the proceedings from deteriorating into melees.

Candidates, their staffs, and voters who have made up their minds should take the same approach. One reason for etiquette's wariness about political discourse is that they often don't. Respect for opposing views is in short supply these days.

But if there weren't a great many people reserving judgment, we could all go to bed early on Election Night. These are the people whom etiquette hates to prevent from talking politics. In theory, they could trade information and insights, and all come out the wiser.

The practice, however, is miserable. Gentle Readers report being hounded by acquaintances and strangers declaring and demanding views, berating the opposition and belittling their supporters.

So perhaps Miss Manners needn't put a ban on discussing politics -- but only on political polemics, posturing, prying and engaging others in conversations they do not want to have.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was told that in the old days, the initial engraved on a woman's silver flatware was the first initial of her maiden name because it was generally supplied by the bride's parents. The person who told me this is very believable and a historian by profession. However, when I tell people that this is what I've heard, they seem surprised to hear that it's not the groom's last name. Could you tell me what the rule was, if any?

GENTLE READER: Believe your believable historian. In the old days, a lady would collect her silver long before marriage, and, not yet knowing the bridegroom, had her own initials put on it. Miss Manners considers this an even wiser practice in the new days, when the lady might want to collect back her silver after the marriage.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What should one do when one finds out that a friend has done something utterly reprehensible? A fairly new friend revealed to me that, several years ago, she attempted to get a man we both know to claim her child as his own. There was no possibility that he was the biological father, but she pretended that he was to many of his friends and business associates. She could have ruined him, both personally and professionally, as he was married to someone else, as was she.

The man in question is a close friend. He has forgiven her; they maintain a correspondence, and she travels to see him a few times a year. I'm shocked enough to want to cut off all contact with her. On the other hand, she confided in me out of trust, thinking that I would be sympathetic.

If she tries to contact me, what do I do? What do I say when our mutual friend, her attempted blackmail target, mentions her in conversation? He has told me that he is happy that we have become friends.

GENTLE READER: And aren't you happy that they have each other? It enables them to exchange all the sympathy they want, leaving you out of their sordid mess.

Miss Manners is afraid that the distribution of ethics in this friendship is even more uneven than you think. Not only does your friend have too few, but you have one too many.

You seem to believe that being asked for sympathy requires you to give it, in disregard of your own morals. You are not obliged to try to reform such people, but neither are you obliged to continue a friendship with someone whom you now know to be capable of sacrificing a presumably intimate friend in the most dishonest and cruel way.

For that matter, why would you want to be friends with someone who is, for whatever reason, countenancing such unforgivable behavior toward himself?

If you distance yourself from them by being unavailable for appointments or for more than an exchange of basic courtesies when you happen to meet, they will probably be able to figure out why. It isn't as though you were reacting to unsubstantiated gossip, as your friend told it to you herself, or as if there could be circumstances under which this behavior might be justified. But if you are asked, the response is that you realized that you had less in common than you had thought.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Whatever happened to the receiving line at wedding receptions?

It seems as if the current trend is to "announce" the wedding party as they arrive at the reception. Having stood in a few receiving lines myself, I understand how tedious they can be, but how else does one greet one's guests? If one is a guest at such a wedding, when is the proper time to approach the bridal couple for good wishes, or the parents to thank them for their hospitality?

GENTLE READER: Here is what happened to receiving lines: People who spend fortunes on showy weddings, complete with fancy clothes and decorations, decide that a receiving line is "too formal." What exactly they think is a more formal occasion than a wedding, Miss Manners cannot say.

Instead, they decide, they will just move around the reception, saying hello to everyone there. Only they don't. They get caught up chatting, dancing, eating and being photographed, and leave it to their hapless guests to catch them when they can.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am a high school student volunteering time to support a candidate for the U.S. Senate. The neighborhood I was assigned to canvass clearly subscribes to the opposing political ideology. Many a time, a door has been slammed in my face, or worse, derogatory comments made regarding my candidate or myself.

What has become of our democracy when opposing viewpoints are met with abject ire?

Would you kindly do me the favor of suggesting several alternatives these good but misguided citizens could substitute while declining to entertain gently persuasive comments regarding a viewpoint other than their own?

GENTLE READER: The only polite way to shut a door in someone's face is to say, "Sorry, I'm not interested," preferably with a regretful smile, and to close the door gently without having to hear the argument about why one should be interested.

Miss Manners fears that this may be disappointing to you, primed as you are to articulate and defend your reasons for supporting your candidate. But you should remember that the time-honored custom of canvassing violates two everyday rules of etiquette: against invading the privacy of people's homes, and against challenging other people's politics.

This is not to say that you are wrong to do it, nor that anyone is justified in being rude to you. It is just that you -- in common with religious proselytizers, traveling salesmen and collectors for charity -- must expect some irritation when you ring doorbells. Sadly, it is often rudely expressed.

Miss Manners agrees with you that political discourse is in a bad way, but not because there are people who have already made up their minds. You have.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My family had a special occasion in another city and stayed at an elegant hotel, thrilled with the luxury. When I arrived at the complimentary breakfast buffet, within a half-hour of closing, there were at least a dozen people in line.

When I got up to the food, plate in one hand and tongs in the other, a man who had not been in line darted in front of me and began to grab the cut fruit with his hands from the plate in front of me. I was so startled that I just stood there, agog at both the cutting in line and the barehanded grabbing.

Since the melon was slippery, he had some trouble and reached again and again. He then went on to snatch and grab at whatever he could reach of the other plates.

Finally, after a few minutes of this, I icily said, "Pardon me!" He looked somewhat surprised and left the line, plate full.

My question is whether I should have offered him the tongs, or continued to hold the tongs and not assist this behavior further? I feel that I was less than considerate, but I was really so shocked and appalled that I was almost frozen. I have only seen this type of behavior on TV in unfortunate situations such as starving refugee camps, but this fellow looked a lot more prosperous. What does one do when people act this way?

GENTLE READER: Get out of the way.

: