The Dumbing Down Of Politics

Media: You'd think that with the election cycle expanded from one year to two, we'd learn more about the candidates. Instead, we seem to be learning less -- unless you're edified by what they share with supermodels on TV talk shows.

That Fred Thompson thought it cute to announce his candidacy for president on the Jay Leno show, copying Arnold Schwarzenegger's opening shtick in his run for California governor four years ago, came as no surprise. Thompson, after all, already was a TV star.

Goodness knows, Thompson and Schwarzenegger were hardly the first to "embrace the chat," as a Los Angeles Times headline put it the other day.

Dating back to a joint appearance by John Kennedy and Richard Nixon on the Jack Paar show in 1960, and continuing through Bill Clinton's fielding of "boxers or briefs?" queries on MTV in 1991, candidates obviously decided long ago that appearing on entertainment talk shows and other non-news programs was not beneath their dignity.

But now, the Times says, such shows have become "essential stops" on the campaign trail. And it's not just the Lenos and Lettermans , or even the Oprahs, we're talking about.

The Times noted that Barack Obama, during a tight schedule that had him shuttling between New York and Washington last Thursday, "managed to squeeze in time to visit an influential national television program: 'The Tyra Banks Show.'"

"During the hourlong show (which aired Monday)," the Times said, "the supermodel turned TV personality challenged her guest to a game of pickup basketball and had him look in a crystal ball to divine his future."

Now, we have nothing against the lovely Ms. Banks, who has parlayed her success in fashion modeling into a whole new career in TV. Based on the part of Monday's show that we saw, she and Obama eventually moved on to topics more serious than basketball.

But "influential"? As in affecting how people vote for the next commander in chief? Let's hope not.

Let's also hope that viewers aren't putting too much stock in late-night fare. We couldn't believe they would, but then we caught Sept. 25's Jon Stewart show, when Bolivian President Evo Morales -- yes, communist tyrant Evo Morales -- was the guest.

To say the interview was disconcerting is putting it mildly. Reading from a note card that sounded like it was prepared by Morales' professional spin doctors, Stewart zeroed in on the dictator's accomplishments, so to speak:

"You promised to nationalize resources and help distribute some of the money to the poorer folk in Bolivia, to convene a constitutional assembly and to institute agrarian reform -- and you did this within eight months of your election," Stewart gushed.

At which point 20he studio audience burst into loud applause.

Let us provide a little perspective here: Morales sent in the Bolivian military and Venezuelan oilmen last year to seize foreign natural gas investments and has yet to pay the owners fair compensation. His energy grab has since driven foreign investment in exploration and production down 76%. The result is the usual one for a Marxist regime: A gas-rich country now suffers from gas shortages.

As for the constitutional referendum, Stewart neglected to mention that introducing a new constitution effectively will make Morales a dictator in the mold of his patron, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

He also missed that Morales' constitutional assembly proposal is a faded Xerox copy of the one Chavez used to consolidate his dictatorship. The grim reality is that Morales with this measure has pushed his nation to the brink of civil war, one that may well begin this year.

As for the land reforms, these are nothing more than Zimbabwe-style confiscations of productive farmland from legitimate owners to Morales' cronies -- and they'll produce the same fallow wasteland. Morales told Stewart that he was just interested in achieving "unity in diversity" with this move, and Stewart swallowed that whole.

Stewart called Morales a humble farmer and painted him as a Bolivian Horatio Alger success story, completely ignorant of the depth of dynamite-hurling violence and mob intimidation Morales used to blockade Bolivia's cities in a bid to achieve power.

Last week, a former Bolivian official accused Morales of taking illegal cash from Hugo Chavez to pay mobs to overthrow Bolivia's pro-U.S. elected president, Gonzalo "Goni"Sanchez de Lozada, in 2003.

Unlike Goni, Morales won election in 2006 on a campaign platform promising to be America's "worst nightmare." He's done what he could to fulfill that promise, forging an alliance with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran that may involve Iranian exploration for Bolivian uranium. He's also increased coca production, undermining the Western Hemisphere's war on drugs.

All the while, he has denounced $143 million in U.S. aid as "imperialism" and hasn't voiced one word of gratitude for the help the U.S. gave during Bolivia's floods this year.

Morales must have been stunned by Stewart's ignorance and gullibility, and adjusted his expectations accordingly. With candidates like Obama showing the same naivete about Latin dictatorships such as Cuba, they no doubt see plenty of opportunities to roll these talk-show hosts.

The only people who lose are American voters who deserve a lot better than the political "coverage" the tube is providing.