One of the wonderful things about my faith is that the future inspires the present. The Christian message is is uniquely hopeful, with the resurrection of Jesus as the preview of our future, a promise that death does not have the last word. Whether all who read this share my particular faith or not, I think it is time that we evaluate our political candidates on their future visions as well as past statements and votes. Yes, history matters and can be an indicator of patterns and principles for the future. But people can change their minds. When someone adopts our position on an issue and we like her or him, we say she or he is wise and has seen the light. Conversely, if a candidate we do not like very much changes a position, we call her or him a “flip-flopper.” It is time to dispense with such immature thinking and ask our candidates, “What is your vision of the future and what are the concrete actions you will undertake to lead us toward the vision?”

The current Republican candidates for President have all done and said things that open them to attack. Each opponent selects certain statements – in or out of context – and goes on the warpath toward the others. This is politics. Politics becomes statesmanship and visionary leadership, however, when the future can be articulated and new pathways presented. The future is more than vague hopes or talking points. How we see ahead sets the trajectories we choose today. I want our candidates to not only talk a balanced budget, but declare the disciplined decisions needed to get there. It is great to say that job creation matters, but reversing a generation of government interference while maintaining ethics will he a historic challenge. Confronting radical Islamicists while engendering real respect and toleration requires masterful sensitivity and wisdom.

I am going to vote the future. Any of the less-than-perfect Republicans (other than Ron Paul) are superior to our current regime; however, victory in the general election will require cultural, intellectual, moral and political courage. Please inspire and instruct us, Mr. Candidate. Please rekindle our dreams even while we restrict momentary pleasures for the common future. Please expose current follies while unveiling insights that will engender positive action. Please rise above the name-calling and call on the Name for help from above. Please be a person humble enough to change your mind, courageous enough to stand your ground when needed and wise enough to know the difference. Our future depends on it.

Oxford medical ethicists announced today that newborn babies do not have a right to life and should not be considered persons in the normal sense of the word. These inhuman elitists declare that parents should have a right to an “after-birth abortion” if their newborn is not to their liking! Such notions have been hinted at by a few fringe thinkers, but today’s pronouncements unveil the anti-life, dehumanizing agenda of the elites that want their version of scientism to overrule millennia-old ethical principles. As the left caricatures Santorum and other Republicans as anti-contraception and the oppressors of women (ignoring freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the Constitution), this dystopian vision is obscured by shrill demands for freedom, choice and government subsidies for any and all medical procedures.

What kind of world are we in when Catholic health care providers are forced to violate their faith, while governments pay for sex-change operations for prisoners? What perverted notions of family lead us to abortion-on-demand without parental approval? Roe v. Wade has deprived our nation of 54,000,000 people. What happened to welcoming children as our beloved hope of the future?

There are no “good old days” and our compassion and knowledge of the complexities of human identity are important. We must not prosecute adults for consensual, private behavior. At the same time, we must not force people of deep convictions to celebrate activity they disagree with. We must live with our deepest differences and continue to understand all that makes us fully human.

Today’s pronouncement by these “ethicists” crosses a line and must be universally condemned. If we allow any form of infanticide we are opening the door to a nightmare of inhuman and totalitarian behaviors. Why should we pay for the care of an imperfect child at all if they are not really “persons”? Who decides which babies live or die? Mom? Dad? Both? What about a “woman’s right to choose” once the baby in completely out of the birth canal? If the government is paying for care, what is to prevent budgetary considerations from compelling many “after-birth abortions”? At the other end of the spectrum, why not actively rid our world of “unproductive” aged or infirm adults?

I am pro-life, from conception to coronation and every point in between. A Judeo-Christian ethos places equal, eternal value on every human being because s/he is created in God’s image as a unique being. People can disagree about the technicalities of when life begins, but from conception we have the reality of a human. Even if one wants to allow for abortion in special cases or argue about personhood during gestation, no reasonable person can say that a newborn is not a human being! We are reverting to the horrific practices of ancient Greece and Rome as unwanted (mostly female) babies were left exposed to die. How can one be pro-choice while condemning gender-specific abortions? Radical activists face a moral conundrum. If the individual has absolute sovereignty over the death or life of her child, then she cannot be condemned for keeping one gender while aborting another. Yet activists in many countries, after winning abortion rights, are now bemoaning “femicide” as little girls are aborted in larger number than little boys.

The response to today’s declarations must be absolute, universal condemnation, regardless of political or religious affiliations. If we open the door to killing the unfit and/or the unwanted, no one is safe.

I have the honor of addressing spiritual and political leaders in a variety of settings. Here is a summary of some of my thoughts as we prepare for voting in November. The importance of this election cannot be overstated. I am not simply advocating an “ABO” (anyone but Obama) strategy – this is the same shortsightedness that led to trouble in 1976 with Carter and 2008 with Obama. it is important that our voting locally and nationally is proactive and not reactive, and a response to vision and values.

We need clear discernment of the key issues and proper dispositions for lasting change to occur. We must not allow propaganda and deflection to sidetrack clear thinking. Big lies will be sold as truth. Caricatures will be presented as accurate pictures of reality. Statistics will be twisted to validate either progress (the Dow Jones is up this week) or the need for austerity ($5 gas prices prove we need a “green” economy). Religion will be used to promote more or less federal government action. When presented with uncomfortable facts, candidates will fall back on slamming their predecessors or rivals.

Our founders limited the role of government, especially at the federal level and left sovereignty with the people and the states. The last century has seen this fundamental principle reversed, with many people thinking that government bestows liberties and rights! Our founders and all thoughtful people know that liberty requires virtue and self-regulation. America’s birth defect of slavery (thank you, Peter Friedman, for this insight) is healing slowly, but the combination of latent racism and institutionalized victimhood keeps us from more progress. It is possible to affirm the lasting principles of our Constitution and enjoy 21st century innovation and insight. Justice Ginsburg is flat-out wrong to suggest that nations should not look first at the US Constitution as a model. She is obsessed with the imperfections (that Amendments have and can address) and fails to see the underlying brilliance of the authors. We are in a new battle between the totalitarian vision of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan that controls all facets of life and meters out a few benefits and John Locke’s works on civil society and the role of government that protect life, liberty and property.

Discernment means that we must recognize ideology as the enemy of theology (for those of faith) and sound critical thinking (for those of all faiths or none). When we are captive to any word that ends in ISM, we place ourselves in a straight jacket. For example, though I am considered “conservative” on many subjects, I refuse to allow the lens of conservatism to be the first refractor of truth. My carefully-considered positions on issues may place me in or out of particular ideological ‘camps.” For example, I am pro-life and also against the death penalty for civil crimes. I think we have a moral obligation to offer health care to all, but not deliver it as a single-payer program of an inefficient federal government.

Discernment affirms that policy compromises can work, such as the Clinton-Gingrich deal on welfare, work and the budget in the 1990s. Public-private partnerships are salutary for large infrastructure projects. Budget restraint has to include military and social welfare spending. There are “deals” that can happen that maintain the integrity of all parties.

Discernment means that we strive to find a healthy balance between individual rights and community well-being, especially concerning property use. There is a way forward that transcends the petty despots that push extreme environmental agendas or their counterparts that are on the take allowing rapacious development with no thought to ecological concerns.

A Culture of Life means that the vulnerable are cared for, from conception to coronation and that private and public groups work together to ensure that children are welcome, the aged are respected and the hurting are treated with dignity.

Discernment means that people of faith see God’s common grace in others. Partnerships across cultural and religious boundaries are possible as we celebrate shared values and visions for the future.

Dispositions of humility and hopefulness, reverence for God and respect for all people and prayerfulness and personal kindness will build a better future. Our new dispositions can forge new alliances as conservative groups work with more liberal groups to combat sex and work slavery and ameliorate poverty.

When we love our enemies and return curses with blessings and refuse to get in the gutter of deceit, sterling character is forged and specific competencies will shine. When we live within our means and work to create wealth for ourselves and others, we will find more moments of joy and peace.

We have the opportunity to create – one conversation and one relationship at a time -a better future for our nation and the world. Yes, we must vote. Yes, we must debate. No, we cannot compromise crucial beliefs. But we can be known for our love and integrity, our humility and respect for all and our willingness to listen deeply, think well and find ways to work together.

The political histrionics are in full swing as another Presidential election saturates our attention. Obama’s strategy remains the same – blame most of the problems on previous administrations and “structural” issues and spread more federal largess to key business leaders and voting constituencies (He is from Chicago, after all). Republicans are spending too much time reacting to each other and too little attention to vision and practical solutions. We have the omnipresent phenomenon of everyone shouting over each other instead of engaging is honest debate and dialogue. We have Rep. Maxine Waters calling thoughtful Republican leaders, “demons” and telling Californians to not let then in the state. So much for a new bipartisan, post-racial, synergistic future! The Right talks family values but needs to offer solid ways forward for economic stability for the families it wants to serve.

“Election polemics and politics-as-usual”, you say. Yes, we have a colorful history of parties spewing venom dating back to 1800. But this is not an excuse for incivility and insufficient effort to hear one another. Instead of commenting on “those politicians,” I want to address our personal responsibility as we prepare to cast our ballots.

I challenge all of us to sit down with our colleagues, families and neighbors that may have different views and listen to each other as we discuss issues we all have in common, from economics to education, from safe schools to safe borders. Let’s take an hour and agree to listen to each other, with a view to offering a way forward instead of just attacking our opponesnts. On immigration, for example, how do we uphold the law and show hospitality? How do we have military preparedness and national security while streamlining the budget? How do we stimulate business and protect the environment? The issues can be local or global and we will not always find middle ground. But beginning the conversation with the aim of finding solutions is much better than shouting down opposition sound bites.

I am not calling for a lack of passion, just kindness, humility and practicality rooted in sound principles. Passion and principle united create powerful changes for the good. Maybe if we listen deeply, we will be better informed, understand our neighbor and find new answers that are veiled behind the hot air!