The Disintegration of Political Argumentation

Lately, I've been considering the differences and similarities between the ways that political debate and dialogue and theological debate and dialogue (within the genuinely Christian camp) are handled.  Though I do make it a point not to discuss my party affiliation or specifically "political" topics which must be considered preferential in regards to the didactic teachings of scripture, from time to time I do feel compelled to address (in the category of sociology) certain issues facing the American political landscape.

I have become increasing discouraged and disgusted by the methods and tenor of the dialogue between the parties, which in general, is a contrast to theological debates.  Though I have seen a great deal of vitriol shared in the debate over Calvinism and eschatology, for the most part, these exchanges are at least considered to be between multiple schools of thought employing different means to the same end...the glory of God.  The similarity I have seen recently is the casual approach to truth with which each ticket has interpreted the opposing position.  Like many non-Calvinists I've read, they seem completely uninterested in the truthful exchange of ideas through the vehicle of an honest criticism of what an opponent has said.  Instead, we the public, are battered by fallacious argumentation like, "red herrings", "weak analogies", "slippery slope", "straw men", and "ad hominem".  Perhaps this is the result because, unlike theological debates, the study and practice of politics doesn't have a set of "solas" by which to govern their squabbling.