It may be the collective impact on me of the "peace on earth, good will toward men" stuff we are smothered with this season, but I am finding myself increasingly puzzled and even irritated by the contrast between what we say is our culture and ethic as Americans and the brute ugliness and mean-spiritedness of policies and proposed policies being thrown around by candidates, talk-show troglodytes and, yes, even by one of nature's nobler animals, newspaper columnists.

One of the most painful areas is the subject of immigration. It is critical to remember here that all of us, with the exception of Native Americans -- although it is generally considered that even they trekked here early on -- are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, whether we crowded on the Mayflower or filed in at Ellis Island more recently. Shakespeare explained but did not dignify the phenomenon in Julius Caesar when he had Cassius say, "... lowliness is young ambition's ladder, Whereto the climber upward turns his face; But when he once attains the utmost round, He then unto the ladder turns his back, Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees, By which he did ascend."

How then do we get from that, the fact that we were all immigrants, to building stupid fences across our southern border with Mexico, denying the fact that we have jobs that need to be done, jobs that Americans who are here already simply will not do, and then rant and rave about how much it costs the rest of us in taxes to provide the helpless children of those who come here a decent education and health care?

Anyone who knows anything about walls and fences, whether it be the Great Wall of China, the wall the Israelis are building across the West Bank of the Jordan River or the Maginot Line that was supposed to keep the Germans out of France, knows that the millions we are spending on a fence between us and Mexico (and us and Canada, too) isn't going to work and is truly an abomination to what it means to be American, the children of the great melting pot. We should be ashamed to look at those photos of our great-grandfathers who came here looking for work, seeking reasons for hope.

Then there is religion in politics. I will confess to being discomfited to a degree by the thought of someone who believes things that I find virtually impossible to accept as valid being in the White House and making important decisions that impact on my life, or on that of my sons, daughter and grandsons. But I don't know which I find more ignoble, the pandering of candidates to potential voters' religious prejudices, or the fact that some potential voters are measuring the overall virtue of candidates in terms of the degree to which the candidate's religious beliefs parallel their own.

How is it relevant to how a candidate would be as president to know to what degree he believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God? That is, as if he is going to tell you anyway rather than what he thinks you want to hear.

I grew up in a town where there was a church or synagogue every few blocks. The subject of religion was strictly excluded from classrooms in the public schools. When one teacher broke the taboo and a student declared, "I don't believe you can be saved unless you have been sanctified," everyone recalled the origin of the prohibition and the subject was instantly closed. With no hard feelings.

Then there is the subject of torture. Anyone, starting with President Bush, who thinks that water-boarding is not torture should be water-boarded. Then ask him.

How can we -- in the holiday season or any other season -- be arguing whether torture is an acceptable American national practice or not, whether it be to fend off another 9/11 attack or whatever? To treat another human being in that fashion is to dehumanize oneself. Why did we get so steamed up about Michael Vick organizing dog-fighting but not wonder just a little bit when we heard that the CIA didn't want "interrogation" tapes lying around because Americans might get their hands on them and see what was being done in their name?

And then there is Guantanamo Bay, where American soldiers hold hundreds of foreign prisoners, some for more than five years, without charges, without legal defense, without trial. The Supreme Court is now considering a case to determine whether prisoners at Guantanamo have the right to habeas corpus -- guaranteed in Article One of our Constitution -- which is the right to be charged and tried or freed. In the tape of the court session one hears one old, white, male justice arguing that the accused is foreign -- that's why he shouldn't be accorded rights, even though he is in our custody, in our country, the land of the free. Are non-holders of American passports somehow inhuman? Has this man ever known a foreigner as a friend?

And then I move to behavior that is not necessarily mean-spirited, but is out of character for Americans. How have we, basically an honest, frugal people, run up a national debt moving toward $10 trillion and, as individuals, staggering credit card debt? We all know better, as a nation, as families and as Americans.

Everyone deplores the role of money in electoral politics. This election is apparently going to run to $1 billion. One topic of conversation now is the general low quality of the candidates. It should cross our minds that people of honor might simply decide to stay out of politics, considering how demeaning it is to have to beg for money for one's campaign, an only slightly more civilized version of scamming for quarters Downtown. So we get dynasties unless we are careful.

We don't have to be mean-spirited. We can act in keeping with our better qualities. If any season is an especially appropriate time to do that, it is now. Maybe the candidates could pull Santa's sleigh across the sky, with muzzles on, at least for the next few weeks.