People have this primitive interest in conflict. It's embedded into everyone's and every animal's psyche. All animals duke it out for mates. People do this as well, even though we are civilized and more advanced. Battlefields are everywhere. The fields, forests, and deserts of the physical world, and the language used in the intellectual world.

Like war past the Renaissance time period, the intellectual battles of today follow certain rules and guidelines. Debates are supposedly structured so that everyone gets an equal amount of time and equal opportunity to rebuttal. A more ruthless arena is the field of "public perception". This war is fought with selective information and members of society that have great influence speaking for other people in society that have great influence. Like debates, there are certain rules that the participants must abide by; however, that's only for credibility's sake. No one is stopping others from going out and just ruthlessly bashing somebody else for supporting something. You do that though, and your credibility goes nowhere but down. Cliched example, the dude who yelled "fire" in a movie theater when there was no fire. Not only did he get people killed, but nobody ever listened to him again. Candidates for the US President must abide by general unwritten guidelines too, including dressing nice no matter what the appearance, speaking eloquently, and keeping your jabs at others short and poignant, except for debates.

There seems to be a disturbing trend forming in the intellectual battlefields however; and that trend is the SuperPAC. Stephen Colbert is doing a great job at pointing out the trends, including; but not limited to, deferred foreclosure of donations. The worst thing though is they have no credibility right out of the gate. SuperPACs can be formed at a whim, take millions of dollars, and use those donations to make just the most nasty, slanted, propagandized material this side of the early twentieth century. Seriously! There is supposed to be no formal link between presidential candidates and SuperPACs (and Campaign for Liberty supporters/members will make a VERY CLEAR delineation of this; to the point that Campaign for Liberty material being published with candidate material is frowned upon), but you can't help but get this intrinsic feeling that at the highest levels; there has to be some connection. This supposed non-connection can be twisted and used in ways that are dangerous to public perception. For one, presidential candidates do NOT have to approve anything a SuperPAC comes out with; since there's that separation. Also, SuperPACs are NOT subject to the donation limits that campaigns are, because they're not tied to the candidate. This means anyone (including corporations) can give anything. The trend is the SuperPAC with the biggest number in the checkbook usually winds up having the most public influence. Gingrich got mad after Romney's SuperPAC slammed him. It was a well-timed attack too; just before the Iowa Caucus. As a result, Gingrich lost a fair percentage of votes from Iowa pre-Caucus to the final results (writer's note: I think this is a great thing), link will be updated when I can find concrete numbers.

Solution:

The solution is rather simple, and one I'm sure you heard repeated time and time again; from your friends to that crazy old guy that used to be on Fox News. Look at the issues. Look to principle. Don't get caught up in the attacks. Don't stay fixated on how one candidate can just absolutely smash on another one. Look at each candidate's history and cast your vote for the one that represents the stances you take on various societal issues. It really is that simple. This solution has two effects. One; your vote is more honest. If your views are reflected the most accurately by that whack-job Libertarian in the ten-gallon hat, scribble his name down! This destroys the concept of a wasted vote, as you voted on principle. Two; how do you get bullies to stop bullying you? You either fight back, or ignore them. These SuperPACs, just like bullies, are looking for a reaction. Don't give it to them! Nothing would be more insulting than a group of people spending millions to get absolutely no reaction.