c. 2004 Religion News Service

(Tom Ehrich is a writer and computer consultant, managing large-scale database implementations. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C. Visit his Web site at http://www.onajourney.org.)

(UNDATED) Campaign 2004 takes me back to college and another election year.

We were smart, well-informed, not conspicuously wise, shallow in experience but enthusiastic about the future.

At first, we joined national debates along the lines being presented. We read voraciously and discussed eagerly. At some point, however, we pulled back. We examined candidates and their issues, we considered our values and vision for America, and in a straw vote we spontaneously wrote in other names.

Years later, I realized this hadn’t been a clever prank. We had voted for “None of the above.” Tweedledum and Tweedledee didn’t speak for the nation we knew. They were a sideshow, the public face for matters that weren’t being debated and yet were shaping our commonwealth. Much was at stake, but somehow this election wasn’t getting close to a referendum on anything meaningful.

Our patriotism came from the Pledge and anthems and from pride in our parents’ steadfastness in World War II, not from politicians’ anti-communist diversions. We were optimistic about America’s future, not determined to harvest votes through fear and bigotry.

Though we got hammered later as moral relativists, we had strong values. I think we believed, first, in an open system. Our nation’s political, economic and cultural life would be open to all participants, all ideas, all possibilities. The game would be fair and the playing field level.

Second, we believed in progress. Things could get better if people worked together.

Third, we believed in romance, in the uplifting power of love and the importance of persons.

I think we voted No because the political buffet trespassed on those values. Candidates wanted us to fight over their trivialities. Noble ideals were rephrased as hubris and fear. The real action was happening behind closed doors, and we were fighting over scraps.

I think about that political season as I watch another presidential campaign drown in trivialities. Attack ads, flag-bedecked podiums where nothing of substance is said, diversionary tactics, and $1 billion of meaningless and disrespectful advertisements.

What don’t they want us to see? What do they want us too divided to notice? Have we learned nothing since the 19th century, when plutocrats stole the nation blind while obedient politicians stirred class and racial hatred and waged pointless war? What is this shell game?

A reader asks an interesting question: “How would Jesus vote?”

Not directly answerable, of course. But now that a swarthy, Semitic, nonconformist and non-property-owning immigrant can vote in an American election, the question has some pertinence. I doubt our leaders will like the answer.

Jesus had an ability to see what needed to be seen. At one meal, for example, he saw the guests competing for places of honor, and he commented on their grasping. He saw the few using religion as a cover for greed and control. He challenged wealth and power as life pursuits. He was more concerned with feeding the hungry. He pushed past bigotry masquerading as faith. He recognized hypocrisy.

Jesus valued people, not property. He wanted more from people than they themselves wanted. He called them deeper into love and self-sacrifice than people normally risk going. He was, in a word, hopeful.

I wouldn’t expect Jesus to honor the harsh and haughty words that we hear from our candidates, even those claiming his name. I wouldn’t expect blaming, scapegoating or bigotry. Or death used as a photo op.

I would expect breadth of vision. I would expect Jesus to see the chasm separating the wealthy few from the impoverished many, and to be sad about that chasm. I would expect Jesus to see who has food and who doesn’t. I would expect Jesus to ask the candidates whom they love and how deeply.

I don’t know where Jesus would vote. Many Americans seem to assume Jesus would vote in their election and on their self-defined issues. Maybe so. More likely Jesus would join hands with those whose vote no one values or wants to allow.

I think Jesus would seek humility from the winner and forgiveness from the loser. Then he would break bread with the hopeless, saying, “I believe in you.”

DEA/PH END EHRICH