Campaign strategists aren’t hired to illuminate and educate the public on the pressing issues of the day. They are hired by politicians — not voters — and their job is to deliver victories.

Voters can influence campaigns, but only if the campaigns benefit in some way. The reason campaigns “go negative” or delve into distractions is simple: It works. Campaigns won’t change until those tactics become a waste of time.

Voters can easily identify negative campaigning, but the distractions can be more difficult to discern. One way to decide whether a campaign talking point is a distraction is to perform this simple test: Would it matter if a candidate you favored was on the short end of an alleged advantage?

Let’s look at some examples:

In the 1992 and 1996 presidential races, combat service was a hot topic. An issue that didn’t matter when Ronald Reagan was president (he defeated two veterans) suddenly took center stage. The first President Bush and Bob Dole served with distinction in World War II. Bill Clinton dodged the Vietnam War. Does that mean those who supported Bush and Dole then will back the only current candidate to fight in a war?

Don Barbieri is an experienced businessman who is new to politics. His opponent, Cathy McMorris, is an experienced politician with limited business credentials. The Barbieri campaign can play the business card, while labeling his opponent a “career politician.”

Swayed? Then think about the race for governor. Republican Dino Rossi is the businessman, and Christine Gregoire is the career politician. We suspect that most Barbieri voters will pick the career politician in that race.

Sticking with the congressional race, consider the Republican primary. McMorris played up the fact that Shaun Cross and Larry Sheahan were attorneys and that she had eluded that fate.

Had Cross won, would McMorris have endorsed non-lawyer Barbieri? Of course not. And why is that? Because the issue of occupation is phony. Other disposable distractions are marital status, length of residency and events that occurred decades ago.

Phony issues and negative campaigning have produced a more polarized electorate, because they drive less-partisan voters away. This suppression of participation has a corrosive effect on our democracy, but it won’t abate until the public demonstrates that it has higher expectations.

Voters and the media should make it clear that they expect candidates to address the chief concerns of the day, including health care, jobs, taxes, education, foreign policy, national defense and a variety of social issues.

That’s where the nondisposable differences between candidates reside.