I think that depends-large sections of the populace want showmen of one type or another. Liberals and apolitical normies are generally most comfortable with bland politicians. Or-bland politicians that can also act "inspiring" and "profound".
Part of the reas the Trump administration caused such dissension was because Trump broke the rules-presidents aren't supposed to be divisive figures that shamelessly appeal to their own constituency-their basically priest kings, comforters, uniters, father figures. Not "I got my people who voted for me, fuck you lot". It shreds the illusion.
(Or at least the modern mystique around presidents has been crafted to make them appear as inoffensive yet unifying figures-that lead the nation, through triumph, through grief, through uncertainty). Above petty partisanship, above street ugliness, ritualized ur-fathers. Trump was none of those things.
FDR played into this sort "national father" figure-and conservatives despised him because how dare a politician, a servant of the people accord such servility-now conservatives want a patriarch who will dive into the mud for them.
But for the last forty years-since Clinton if not Carter-presidents and politicians have been carefully managed, every word considered with precision, every speech intended to offend as few as possible, every soundbite appealing to the broadest base. Large sections of the population want energetic showmen-not these empty suits that are so clearly insincere. No one is inspired by rehearsed scripts and empty corporatese.
At the same time-showmen are all so often carnival creatures-cavorting and acting in a way that speaks to a lack of seriousness or finesse.
TLDR: Americans invest far too much emotionally into politicians who modulate their personalities accordingly to the "above petty ugliness" or "shoot from the hip mud brawler" archetypes.
