Fundamentalism, the old joke used to go, is the nagging fear that somebody, somewhere, might be having a good time.

We sometimes get the sense that Bainbridge Islanders -– a few, anyway — have slipped into their own sort of fundamentalist mindset, tormented by the never-ending anxiety that somebody, somewhere, is building something.

And while we expect a certain amount of hyperbole in election years, it’s hard not to perceive a hysterical edge in some recent letters endorsing one candidate or opposing another. Specifically, we refer to the assertion that anyone professing to be a political moderate is really a mole for “development” interests, or would somehow be a threat to clean air and water.

Notwithstanding the unpalatable negativity of the message – forget the good that Our Guy could do, think about the evil that Their Guy would do – it reflects a facile and reductive worldview.

Last time we checked, none of the current council candidates – and this includes the one who actually makes part of his living as, heaven forbid, a carpenter – is running on a “Pave the Island” campaign. Nobody is demanding wholesale upzoning, or the easing of our myriad environmental protections.

“Aha,” you say. “Those developers, they’re stealthy. And maybe we should suspect you too – you’ve been co-opted!”

We really, really wish we lived in world that black and white. But we don’t. In fact, we can’t help but think that most voters aren’t swayed by the views at either extreme.

We’ve pondered this since the primary election results came in last week. Some readers have asked us how the Association of Bainbridge Communities stamp could have so little apparent cachet with voters; others dislike ABC, yet lament the notion that Bainbridge Concerned Citizens might take the results as validation of their own dubious firebranding.

Actually, we sense that the majority of islanders pay little attention to either group, and (as statesman Dwight Sutton so adroitly observed in these pages last Saturday) that most recognize the “Environment vs. Development” proposition as fundamentally flawed, a false dichotomy. They understand that growth is inevitable and must be reasonably accommodated; in fact, many current voters live in new homes or neighborhoods that, over the past decade, were themselves the source of fundamentalist hand-wringing.

Most also understand that land use regulation – and we find this to be true in most areas of life, where folks of divergent views and interests must live in close proximity – is a question of balance. Individuals may be passionate about the earth, but they also want to know their own rights are valued in the face of what’s usually presented as “the community good.”

This in turn brings out the cyclical nature of politics: when things are perceived as swinging too far in one direction, voters tend to swing them back.

And certainly, we look at all sorts of factors beyond professed positions on current issues: a candidate’s history of community involvement; educational and professional pedigree; style, eloquence and general personableness; track record in office where applicable. We want someone we perceive as honest, and a team player. Simply painting a candidate green doesn’t cut it – nor does splashing asphalt gray on their foe.

We don’t mean to tip our hand on the Review’s upcoming endorsements; we’ve got another round of candidate interviews to do, and we’ll give fair ear to what everyone has to say at the forums. And who knows what voters will decide, ultimately, on Nov. 4? We do, though, firmly believe that there is more that binds us than divides us as island residents, and that demonizing and needless polarity even in a campaign season hurts our community. We believe that islanders, while highly environmentally attuned, are also pragmatic.

And we believe people want a fair and broadly representative government, not a Taliban.