I’m inclined to write columns offering at least somewhat upbeat perspectives. That’s a reflection in part of what could be considered my hopelessly naive nature. But also my desire not to pile on to the challenges so many already face.

Consequently, I generally avoid columns about politics and especially elections. There’s sufficient mud to go around without me slinging more. While I certainly hold opinions about candidates, I’m reluctant to make endorsements. One of the most precious freedoms of living in the United States is the freedom to choose who represents us — hopefully as a result of informed decisions. Voters don’t need my say-so.

Out of fear of what I see as increasingly worrisome trends — even the growing prospects for some dystopian future — I’m making an exception for this election. Not to endorse specific candidates. But to plead with voters to more carefully consider their choices based on the answers to what I believe are three crucial questions.

How do candidates from one political party view those in the other party? 

Do they disagree with their ideas and general approaches to government, but also welcome them as participants in a process to make things better? Or do they view the other party as the enemy, devoid of any good ideas or redeeming qualities? Worse still, do they view the other party as an existential threat? Despite any political differences, far more unites most people than divides them. Regardless of their affiliations, most people want the same basic things: the means to provide homes and food for their families and safe places in which to care for their children.

Why do candidates seek election? 

Most will answer they want to serve and help make things better. Some actually do. But others are motivated by their own interests. They want to gain acclaim, wield power or perhaps enrich themselves. I always look for servant leaders in those who seek public office — those aspiring to lead, but to do so in ways that best serve their constituents. Those who care more about the people they represent than their own aspirations. It’s tragic servant leaders remain in such short supply in politics.

What character do candidates possess? 

Qualifications and experience constitute important attributes. What knowledge and skills do they bring to their positions? I contend, though, character constitutes an even more important attribute. Elected officials confront novel issues and decisions for which they’re unprepared. They must rely instead on their character —  their commitment to do the right things.

In addition to considering questions about candidates, voters should ask questions about themselves. Why do they choose the candidates they do? Party loyalty? Fear? Or do they believe a candidate actually constitutes the best selection? Or at least the lesser of evils?

I’m not about to tell anyone who to vote for. I’m only asking people to consider how they vote and why. And begging them to vote. To participate in the process and avail themselves of one of our most important freedoms.

Phil Castle is editor of the Business Times. Reach him at phil@thebusinesstimes.com or 424-5133.