I think this may be why the US has a strange fascination with electing actors to high political offices - they may cross a lot more partisan lines than any other celebrities that are actually professional policy makers or journalists.

I also think the other cultural difference is that education and science is still highly respected as institutions while confidence in these institutions has been attacked and subsequently declined for decades. This makes a lot of national discourse for what should be otherwise simple discussions much, much harder. This, at the moment Obama's commentary as he exited office is about right - emotion has triumphed over reason and facts.

I think the US likes electing actors because actors are better able to appeal to them emotionally, and because their celebrity status makes them appear more trustworthy.

Any successful politician has the traits of a good actor, but actors can claim they're not "really" politicians, even while running for political office, and using the same political tricks as their rivals. It's a weird "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" complex that Americans seem to fall prey to constantly.

Given the nature of the last few Presidential elections in the US, it doesn't seem as if voters want partisan lines crossed, rather, they want those lines maintained and defended with razor wire and snipers.

Things have to get really dystopian before an Edison Carter can appear.

W-w-w-w-who is Edison C-Carter?

Sanjay Gupta? Al Roker? I really have no idea.

John Oliver?

Not really respected by the Right, and a lot of people in the Boomer generation might not be aware of him. Plus he's a comedian, and would probably see taking that role as absurd and self-destructive. I hope.