Just to clarify, that's a quote from Giddens. I guess how I interpret it is that someone like Donald Trump couldn't have been considered for presidency prior to the consumerization of politics. Once the fine line between being a politician and being a celebrity is blurred; once the fine line between a presidential election and reality tv is blurred then politicians start being measured on popularity, and their popularity is not necessarily dependent on their achievements. They become a commodity simply measured on how much it can sell, in this case, votes. Was that always the case? Maybe.

I do think that this process has intensified over the years and I do think that it would be hard to compare the politicians of today with the likes of Churchill, FDR, Golda, Ben Gurion, Rabin, etc. They had an agenda and would not change it (too much) for more votes.

Now, that being said, who am I to say that the politicians of then were better or more moral than current ones. It's all relevant and some may see current politicians as an improvement. I will also agree that politicians were never liked and they always had their haters but "the office" or the political institution garnered more respect than it does today. That could be because the politicians are worse or just because we are more educated about what goes on behind the scenes...