We’ve all seen pictures of politicians holding babies in front of crowds of potential voters. Politicians, of course, have a right to enjoy the heart-warming feeling of embracing a newborn just as much as the rest of us. However, if a politician were to hold a baby for the sake of using it as a prop for photo in order to convince voters of how loving and caring he/she is, then a problem arises.

Now, whether politicians choose to hold babies as a superficial way to boost their rankings in the poles is impossible to know for sure, as we cannot read their minds to figure out why they do it.  Negative ads and half-true claims on the other hand are, in my opinion, definitely superficial tactics politicians use to gain the favor of the public. Voters should keep an eye out for these tactics to avoid falling prey to their influence. 

When I see a political smear ad on TV, it almost makes me gag. How immature are American politicians that they spend millions of dollars insulting one another in front of the entire United States?  When I see these ads, I can’t help but form a mental image of two 10-year-old brothers yelling at each other. “Hillary Clinton represents the worst of the Washington machine“ to me amounts to one brother telling his mom that the other stole his G.I. Joe. “Rand Paul is wrong and dangerous“ turns into the other brother arguing that he only did because his brother broke his toy truck.  It all seems like a very superficial way to confront the mistakes of opposing candidates, as intellectual, well-informed arguments against the candidates’ decisions are rarely used.  In other words, candidates are taking the easy way out when they choose to destroy their opponent’s reputation instead of voicing plans for dealing with political issues.

Some might argue that smear ads are important because they inform voters on the flaws of candidates. In some respect, I agree that candidates’ past mistakes should be taken into account. However, I think the better way to do this would be to calmly and respectfully point out a poor decision an opposing candidate made, why it was a bad decision, and what proof it offers that the candidate will make bad decisions in the future.  In other words, use rational reasoning rather than simply ranting about all of the things an opposing candidate has done wrong.

To be fair, there might be a good reason that rational arguments aren’t candidates’ preferred method of self-promotion. The reason might be that the average American doesn’t want to put forth the energy or time to digest confusing political issues. This could be because they’re busy or simply lazy and uninterested. Either way, treating elections like popularity contests is much less work. Unfortunately, when Americans interact with elections like they’re popularity contests, the wrong people end up representing our country.

I also see smear ads as a way for a candidate to cast him or herself in a positive light without proving what positive things he or she has done and will do. Rather than confronting the complex problems the United States is facing, candidates are just hoping they can destroy their opponents’ reputations to the point that voters just assume they are the only rational choice, regardless of their political plans.    

I would like to see our country get to a point where voters make candidates feel shameful when they run negative ads.

Negative ads often use half-true claims, which is also a superficial tactic for getting votes. Politicians are constantly trying to push ideas into Americans’ minds without having ample proof to back them up. I consider false claims to be examples of superficial politics because they attempt to persuade voters without revealing the complexity of the issues they’re confronting.

An example of a half-true claim occurred during the recent Republican debate. 

Donald Trump implied that it looked like there were “very few women. Very few children. Strong, powerful men.” In a country where terrorism is such a big topic, many people might become worried when they hear the crowds of Syrian refugees are of the same demographic as most known terrorists. They might then be comforted to know that if they vote for Donald Trump, they are unlikely to meet any of these “powerful men” as he has taken a stance against letting Syrian refugees into the United States. The truth is though that although some of the refugees are able bodied men, most are women and children. 

Now this is just one example of a half-true claim made by a politician, and it is important to understand that many more politicians have made claims just as misleading. In fact, there are entire organizations dedicated to fact checking politicians.  For example, FactCheck.org “monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases.”

In the upcoming year, I would encourage people, especially college students who will have the opportunity to vote for the president of the United States for the first time, to pay close attention to smear ads and claims made by politicians. 

Smear ads are used for a reason, because they can persuade people even if they don’t offer any legitimate way to solve problems the United States is dealing with. Try not be one of the people persuaded by such ads. 

Half-true claims can also have a misleading impact on voters who take politicians on their word, so stay weary of them.