The 2004 election is proof that Vietnam is the war that won't go away. But it should as an issue in choosing the next president.

The spotlight on Vietnam and the actions taken during the period by President George W. Bush and challenger John F. Kerry is distracting the electorate from the real problems facing the nation.

Of course Vietnam does have a place in public discourse and this is likely the reason why we are mistakenly concentrating on it this election season. In the nearly 30 years since the conflict ended, the war and frenzied era it inspired has been used as a guide by national policymakers, particularly in military strategy. As a result, concern about involvement in another Vietnam quagmire is common when the United States sends troops abroad.

Vietnam, unlike any other conflict since the Civil War, continues to haunt us. People in the United States have a powerful sense of guilt stemming from the horrors uncovered in the jungles of Southeast Asia, as well as the brutality used to squash dissent at home. These evils raised deeply troubling questions about us as Americans and human beings. Because the public has unresolved feelings about Vietnam, it stays with us and is then passed down to successive generations.

Visions of Vietnam also remain intense because the popular culture industry has built an industry based on glorifying the era. Quite frankly, Vietnam, like other watershed moments in history, sells. These mental images enable people to feel that they have a stake in the issue, especially in ensuring that the country never gets involved in another Vietnam-like war.

The dangerous aspect of voters using Vietnam to distinguish between the candidates in 2004 is that it gives them an easy way to fall back on popular culture imagery, rather than on a reasoned set of factors. For example, the box office smash "Forrest Gump" foreshadowed Kerry's actions. Voters may subconsciously equate the candidate with Forrest -- the heroic, decorated veteran who questions the war upon returning home.

Basing a vote on Vietnam gives voters yet another one-issue rationale lumped in with other polarizing issues, such as reproductive rights, gun ownership, or religion. The last thing the country needs is a voter pulling the lever in November based on fuzzy Hollywood notions of the war.

The current Vietnam firestorm leads naturally to a discussion of the consequences of pop culture's influence. Americans are increasingly defined by the plethora of pop culture, which determines who we are, how we think, and what we value.

We get our news from the Comedy Channel and personal blogs, form our political views from movies, and pay much more attention to Britney Spears or "American Idol" than reasoned political debate. Why focus on arcane economic policies when "Survivor" is on in half an hour?

Voters who don't remember (or were too young to see) the chilling footage of the war on nightly news broadcasts have clear, full color mental images of the conflict from numerous acclaimed movies, ranging from Apocalypse Now to Full Metal Jacket . Actor Sylvester Stallone may have become famous portraying boxer Rocky Balboa, but it was his Rambo character (a persecuted Vietnam veteran who fights back) that redefined the modern action hero at the box office.

It is not much of a stretch to move from these ubiquitous pop culture influences to nightly news clips of former Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis peering out from a tank turret or Bush hitching a ride with a fighter pilot to board an aircraft carrier. Movies wrap themselves in the flag, so presidential candidates follow suit.

Ninety-nine percent of the time, pop culture's dominance really doesn't matter. Obviously, people demand that their lives be filled with entertainment, sports, celebrity, and reality television. I feel we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

With millions of jobless workers unable to support their families and the gap between rich and poor growing at an alarming rate, how a presidential candidate spent his time during the Vietnam War doesn't really matter. It is a trivial concern compared with the real challenges that need to be solved by the country's next top executive.