IT'S election year and so the ideological landscape of the island becomes far more vibrant than usual. When I say vibrant I don't mean ideas are exchanged in a more honest and open way or that ideological transformations will take place in an easier way; I mean that the mentioning and invoking of ideology becomes more open and comfortable. When it’s not an election year, do people care that much about where politicians stand on issues? They probably should, but do they really?

When an election comes around, there is a feeling that you are supposed to at least pretend you care. You wouldn't want people to think you are a pointless lump of flesh that has no idea what is going on around you, right? You wouldn't want to be the person people point to in the office to prove how democracy can be wasted on the gagu or apathetic? So it becomes the duty of every citizen to challenge their leaders, to question them and see where they stand on the issues.

It is important to use the tiempon botasion in the pursuit of certain truths, but what tends to happen is that amidst all the competing agents and ideological engagements, everything gets lost in a gray haze. People are challenging candidates from so many angles that it is easy to forget that truth still exists. Even though you can say ideology is everywhere, this does not mean that all ideological statements are equal. One of the biggest everyday fallacies people have is that there are “two sides” to every issue. Even if there are multiple sides, or at least two sides to every event, that does not mean that those stories are equal. It does not mean you should value them the same and that they cancel each other out.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen two surveys distributed meant to provide insights into the ideology and psychology of the candidates. We Are Guåhan sent out their survey first to gauge the support that candidates did or did not have for certain aspects of the proposed military buildup. The Guam Chamber of Commerce followed with their own survey to gauge how much candidates support Guam being militarized by the United States. The Marianas Variety came out very strongly against these surveys, arguing they were polarizing and appeared to demand that our would-be leaders see something that is very massive and gray in simple black and white terms. In two editorials, it condemned both for pushing too hard their particular ideological positions and that they were doing a disservice to their causes.

If you pay close attention to the two surveys, while both are crafted in a way to help reveal whether or not a candidate is on their side, one survey is productive and constructive, the other isn't. The We Are Guåhan survey is built upon actual components of the buildup. It places the reality of the buildup in simple black and white equations and a candidate then has to answer whether or not they think the buildup is worth the price the equation requires be paid. It is born from a position that does assume the buildup isn't worth it, but the survey remains “objective” in the sense of reminding the taker about the potential costs and damages.

The Chamber survey is complicated in terms of its proposition, but is so crudely simple in its execution. It seems to be a more refined version of the petition that was circulated last year by the group Para Hita Todo. It is not meant to enhance your comprehension of much, it is meant to overwhelm you ideologically and make you feel like you must comply. So many things were thrown into that single ideological proposition that you are not supposed to feel as if it is possible to be against the buildup. If you are against the buildup it means you are not only against Guam being improved economically, but you are also against it being valued more by the U.S. – being a place where history happens – and also not supportive of the United States and its military.

For the We Are Guåhan survey, one can choose to be against the framework that created it. You can pick yes to some things and no to others. The makers of the survey may not feel it is right for DOD to take new lands or coral reef to be destroyed, but you may see those things as important tradeoffs. The Chamber survey is a different sort of ideological intervention. It is crafted so there appears to be no “reasonable” choice on the other side of the survey.