When politicians compare themselves and point out the unfitness of their competitors' ideas and their characters it is often construed to be a dirty affair. Imagine having to state the bare truth that so-and-so is not worthy to be a leader because he is an adulterer, a cheat and a thief, or that their ideas have and can be proved to be untenable or dysfunctional concerning the prevalent conditions. It boils down to what many see as name calling or mudslinging when you bare your competitor's vices and weaknesses and shortcomings for all to see so that people may make their informed judgment on who is relatively cleaner to lead and lead by example.
This is why Plato and Socrates came to realise that political leaders need to be far above the rest in understanding reality and the good values for them to be able to lead and lead well. They should be possessed of higher intellectual and moral attributes, - philosopher kings they ought to be. The same philosophers also thought that leaders must be possessed of a refined intellect and character to compare to the finest and expensive of matter, -men of gold. How dirty can that be?
