An ad hominem attack, also known as attacking the speaker, is a logical fallacy that occurs when a person attacks the character or merit of a person making an argument rather than attacking the argument itself. 

In reasoning, if you use this sort of rhetoric, your argument is considered invalid on its face. This should be the case in American politics, but unfortunately, it is not. 

Think of all of the pedantic attacks that critics on both sides of the political spectrum cast onto political figures in order to try and discredit them. 

To take an example from our current administration, consider the attacks from the right that our president is Muslim, has never shot a gun, was born in a different country or had a racist pastor.

What do all of these facts have in common? They are all completely irrelevant, and they have nothing to do with how well Barack Obama can run a country. 

That is, there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim in the first place, shooting a gun has nothing to do with making laws concerning guns and the law concerning a person’s birth is an outdated relic designed to protect the country from foreign influence. 

That particular law embodies the irrelevant detail that pervades our country’s political system.  Your place of birth has absolutely nothing to do with your merit as a politician.

Concerning the pastor: Why should the president be accountable for what other people say?  Who you choose to surround yourself with may say a lot about you, but it cannot say what you believe and what you can bring to the table in any given situation.

The Republican Party is not the only group responsible for this sort of attack — consider the countless attacks on Mitt Romney based on his personal wealth.

Think of the countless critics who rambled on about how Romney could not relate to the poor because he is rich. 

Attacks such as these not only are blatantly irrational, but also are morally reprehensible.  The ubiquity of mudslinging in the American political sphere will continuously discredit politicians under inconsequential pretenses and distract Americans from the important issues at hand.

 I am not arguing that one’s character has nothing to do with how they serve as a leader. What I am saying is that politicians should be judged based on the principles they espouse and policies they support more than aspects of their personal life. 

That being said, aspects of a politician’s familial or sexual relations are simply none of the country’s business. Countless politicians have had their careers ruined due to allegations that had nothing to do with their job descriptions. 

These scandals have not only taken the jobs of good men and women, but also have stolen from the American people policies that would have potentially benefited them.

Bill Clinton presided during one of the largest economic expansions in American history, the lowest unemployment rate and government spending in 30 years, and the lowest crime rate in 26 years. 

Yet his career was cut short by an incident which should have never been an issue in the first place. I think personally that what Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky was immoral and lying about it was much worse.

What was the man supposed to say to a country that clearly cared more about who he had sex with rather than what he could do as a president?

Not everyone with skeletons in his or her closet has been found out, and often for good reason.

When Martin Luther King Jr., a leader of the American civil rights movement, was gaining substantial political momentum the FBI conducted an investigation in attempt to find communist ties or extramarital affairs in order to discredit him personally.

We can prove now what the FBI couldn’t then: King certainly cheated on his wife on multiple occasions.

But imagine if they could have. Imagine if the FBI discredited everything King stood for because of his extramarital affairs.  Imagine if he never gave the “I have a dream” speech and if the civil rights movement would have slowed to a stop, all over one man’s personal life.

The world might have been a much different place.  But you know what else might make the world a different place? If the American people accepted that attacks on the personal lives of our public leaders are illogical, petty and counterproductive.