Over the past eight years, there have been many troubles about the ghost of the famous politician. Donald Trump is the standard bearer for this phenomenon and is considered the ultimate proof that the transition from small screen to global leader is flawed. I share similar reservations about Trump as a specific case. But the general preoccupation with politics and the rejection of expertise for the sake of fame seems a little old-fashioned. Jeremy Clarkson‘s recent advocacy for British farmers has almost convinced me that if ever the world needed famous politicians, it’s now.

After Trump’s first election, Democrats looked at the problem and concluded that celebrities were not suited to politics, were too frivolous and frivolous; The left and the political center must promote experience, rhetorical caution, expertise and integrity in the face of someone so obviously unfit for office.

“The ideal post-Trump politician would be a deeply serious figure with at least a strong record of public service,” the New York Times wrote in 2018. Our descent into national chaos, a bulwark against the whims of the mob, will be complete.”

Maybe that was a fair assessment in 2018. However, from 2024 onwards, the evaluation appears to be poor. First, the liberal center’s self-description as “adults in the room” is ill-intentioned: it makes them not seem like a safe couple, but rather like patricians who turn their noses up at voters, or indeed the “mob.” This was probably a very quick way to make themselves unpopular. But more than that, these so-called “extremely serious figures” did not have an easy time in politics last year; The technocratic style of management supported by many in the center is faltering.

Look at the failure of the Democratic establishment to keep Trump at bay; chance of choice Emmanuel Macron And Justin Trudeau; the crisis Olaf Scholz. Keir Starmer The party, whose summer victory was not a show of support for him but a protest vote against the Conservative Party, is deeply unpopular. Ireland – for many reasons – will be the Western nation to buck this trend as the center continues, if the polls are correct.

( Young, aggrieved men may not have won the election for Trump, but Trump knows how to talk to themOpens in new window )

This trend has a lot to do with inflation and the populist hostility of fringe groups moving to the forefront of politics. But in any case, none of these “deeply serious figures” have managed to combat Trump’s rambling rhetoric. The Labor Party suffered greatly from the Reformation and Nigel Farage‘s man-on-the-street persona. Such powerful politicians need a strong opposition; not the retreat of the liberal center into its own safe management trenches.

Clarkson has gone from beloved Top Gear presenter to beloved columnist and now even more beloved professional celebrity farmer. He is a braggart and a loudmouth, and – like Trump – he does not share the same material concerns as ordinary voters (one suspects he is very, very rich). But somehow – like Trump – he has become a kind of “populist tribune”. Tom McTague christened it in Unherd. He is rhetorically skilled, though prone to self-aggrandizement. “(Rachel) Reeves and her politburo have declared ‘all-out war on the countryside,'” he said at the farmers’ protest on Tuesday. Clarkson’s personal fight against the government seems very topical right now.

( Britain’s Conservative Party: we’re moving to the right Opens in new window )

This has something to do with the course of politics in 2024. The extreme progressivism of the late 2010s has faded; Issues of identity and social justice are no longer the main story, as in 2018, for example. Me too reckoning and the 2020s Black Lives Matter Summer. Instead, farmers’ unease with new inheritance tax measures that endanger the interests of small local endeavors and promote the interests of large conglomerates seems emblematic of politics across the Continent at the moment. And Clarkson managed to capture it.

He’s interested in Labor because he’s famous and very good at being quasi-politician: on the street with protesters, uninterested in politeness and niceties we’re told are necessary, speaking like a normal person, not a career politician. He has all the charisma of Brussels’ least interesting bureaucrat. It is extremely popular with an already established audience. If the liberal center looks at Clarkson and sees an effective defender of conservatism, then the question must be: Why not produce a version yourself?

The answer to this changing climate is not to adapt and engage in valuable self-assessment to become serious people whose divine mission is to keep “the community” at bay. Instead, the liberal center needs to learn this harsh lesson in realpolitik and adapt. There’s no point in holding on to a version of yourself that no longer works.

The center and the left can reject the thought of the right as much as they want, but there is no point in rejecting their style; a style of politics that clearly works. Jeremy Clarkson is interesting precisely because he has no interest in the pressures and posturing of his opponents and no apparent desire to be identified as the “adult in the room.” It’s time for everyone to catch up.