The standard explanation for the rise and rise of 'outsider' figures like Donald Drumpf in the US (and Clive Palmer in Australia) is that there is disillusion in democratic countries with 'politics as usual'.
There is a perception — with a fair basis in reality — that politics, especially the two-party version prevalent in the US, Australia or the UK has failed, leading to a situation where the governing party and opposition agree on most major issues: whether that be free trade, participation in the latest overseas war, legislation restricting civil liberties or the ill-treatment of asylum seekers.
This is not to say that all of these views are out of step with those of a majority of the population at large. Nevertheless, sufficient numbers of people are so fed up with the status quo that they are willing to try something different.
What that 'something different' is may range wildly within each country from more traditional socialist ideas (such as those of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK or Bernie Sanders in the US) to more right-wing forms of populism (such as the nativist rhetoric of a Nigel Farage, Jackie Lambie or Donald Drumpf) to even overtly Nazi views (such as those of groups like Golden Dawn in Greece or Right Sector in the Ukraine).
Neal Gabler has blamed the media for turning politics into celebrity theatre by refusing to ask the hard policy questions of such protest candidates and thereby allowing insurgent characters with absolutely no substance behind them to flourish.
While he has pinpointed the symptom, I suggest that he has it exactly the wrong way around. It is precisely because politics has already been hollowed out to be a slanging match of personalities rather than a contest of ideas (or at least ideologies) that vacuous celebrities can flourish and even triumph.
What has caused this hollowing out? It results from the fact that the ideologies of both parties are practically identical. This is because, as the old adage says, the one who pays the piper calls the tune.
In the US, at least, this position is official. The Supreme Court there has held, in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, that it would violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution to regulate political expenditure by a corporation.
This built on an earlier case, Buckley v Valeo, which said that spending money is the same thing as free speech (because it is the only way