Molly Tumanic

It’s campaign season, and there are many inherent and annoying conditions that apply.

Republicans and Democrats searched their opponent’s policy record, hoping to identify some sort of weakness that could harm the opposition’s public persona. This is understandable – both sides want to win, and it should be some sort of a comfort that the candidates feel accountable to the public.

The problem is many aspects of politicians’ pasts are taken out of context, placed into today’s political climate and used to unfairly discredit them. This would be understandable if every American citizen were a political junkie, prepared and willing to personally disseminate all the propaganda. Most of us aren’t.

I’m not going to assert that one side is worse than the other. Rather, I’ll attempt to mediate between both sides of the dilemma, reviewing aspects of both sides’ strategies while hoping to remain fairly objective. There is no doubt that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has used his Vietnam War record to his advantage, and President Bush’s supporters are quick to point this out – but why shouldn’t he? After all, there is documentation and physical proof of Kerry’s service, and heroism in the name of one’s country should be praised. This does not, however, give Kerry fans the right to condemn Bush’s record in the Air National Guard. Although his military career was not characterized by danger, he nevertheless felt that serving one’s country was an important duty.

Portrayals of both sides’ foreign policy records also have gotten out of hand. Bush is not the smooth diplomat that Bill Clinton and others were, and his confrontational style has led to fractured relationships, but he has not alienated the whole world as the Democrats would claim.

Bush’s foreign policy, while weakening some alliances, has also solidified many international friendships with an unapologetic style. Those who are “against us” are difficult to work with, but those who are “with us” are dependable and devout.

On the other side, there is no denying that Kerry voted against numerous military appropriations while on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – but when Republicans have held a majority in the Senate for nearly a decade, it is doubtful they would allow a “dove” to remain influential on such an important committee if he didn’t have some sort of prowess. The majority of the appropriations Kerry opposed were for military technology that is hardly integral to “protecting our soldiers.” The majority of wars today are fought with smart-bombs and high technology systems.

There is another point that few conservatives can argue with. Kerry’s record on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee spans across the closing days of the Cold War and into the relatively stable 1990s, an era in which excessive military spending was unjustified with the Soviet rivalry over.

Military spending was grossly out of hand as a result of decades of paranoia and defensive attitudes, and Kerry’s voting record was probably more about balancing the budget than dismantling American military defenses.

Both candidates’ Iraq reconstruction policies also have been unjustly dogged. Bush is opposed to relinquishing any control to the United Nations, making him look stubborn and undiplomatic – but why should he feel inclined to give into U.N. authority after it refused to aid him? Kerry, on the other hand, is in favor of allowing U.N. support in Iraq – and why shouldn’t he be? Doing so will restore relations with many middle-power nations, ease the military and monetary burden and prove the war was not about American imperialism.

The discussion about which side has obscured the truth more is one that could go on indefinitely, concerning everything from foreign policy to tax codes.

Perception is the most important thing in an election, and making allegations without providing the background information is a common practice. So before you start to accuse Bush of being a phony, power-hungry, stubborn war hawk, or Kerry of being a two-faced dove who won’t supply our troops with what they need or protect democracy, take a step back.

It’s important each of us selects a side that we truly agree with and relate to, but take your time. Take a look at where the finger-pointing is originating and you’ll see that the only thing both sides are undeniably guilty of is using propaganda when the truth is more important.