Newly elected legislators like to let slip that they expect to encounter peculiar forms of etiquette in Washington.
How they word this confession so as to fashion it into a moral position depends, Miss Manners has observed, on the method they used for getting themselves sent to Washington:
If they got there by proclaiming the capital to be a haven for crooks, they take the populist stance, declaring that they will never succumb to the fancy social life such people will attempt to lure them into. If they used the alternative method of declaring that the place is a haven for bunglers, they take the sophisticated approach of saying that such luxury will be just another version of behavior they mastered long ago.
Miss Manners is afraid that they are all sadly mistaken. ("Sadly mistaken" is a phrase they should know; it is Washington's polite term for ignorance or lies.) Formal etiquette in Washington is not the same as elsewhere, and they will succumb.
But they needn't worry about black-tie dinners and White House parties. The rules are not that hard, and a cadre of social cadets stands ready to help them.
At parties elsewhere, people dress to look prosperous and fashionable, and try to behave as if they are having a fabulous time. In Washington, the goal is to appear as if you are just managing to stay decent on an inadequate salary, and to behave as if you are putting in an appearance before going back to work.
The real etiquette traps in Washington, the kind where one mistake can destroy a career overnight, are another matter entirely. And these are so treacherous that powerful and experienced people keep falling into them.
The first is that people listen to what elected officials are saying. Not the rhetoric they have been practicing, of course, but the casual comments and jokes made under the assumption that everyone shares the same prejudices.
It is several decades now that the society has refused to tolerate any expression of bigotry, and Miss Manners would have thought that people who depend on public approval would have learned not to utter any. Yet the parade of experienced politicians whose careers self-destruct while they plead mercy for what they call "a poor choice of words" never stops.
The second is that the attack mode is not the best way to get business accomplished in a form of government that requires cooperation and compromise. Rudeness angers one's colleagues and annoys the public.
People who have just won elections by out-snarling and out-insulting their opponents naturally have a hard time understanding this. Miss Manners suggests that they reflect on the difference between a defeated opponent who gets left behind and other successful candidates who work in the same place they do. And while the public enjoys a good fight with a decisive finish, it no longer finds pugnacity in daily life novel or amusing.
DEAR MISS MANNERS: I wanted to know what the etiquette is for saying something delicate in e-mail. I don't want to get too personal, but I want to let people know how I feel. Is it OK to be blunt in e-mail?
GENTLE READER: If by "delicate" you mean offensive, and if by "blunt" you mean harsh, it will not be OK for the recipient. E-mail offers the temptation of being ruder than one would dream of being to people when looking them in the eye, and this should be resisted.
Miss Manners also wishes to point out that the result might not be OK for you, either. People who are insulted through e-mail don't just get angry -- they get busy clicking the "Forward" button to circulate your rudeness, adding a few pithy comments of their own.
: