Ever since the 1968 ABC debates between William F. Buckley Jr. and Gore Vidal, American politics has largely followed an adversarial template in which Republicans are labelled “crypto-Nazis” and Democrats are “queers”. However, as we head into a watershed election year, the rise of ISIS has unleashed a new level of hysteria on the political process.

This is in part fuelled by the polarising influence of cable news. America does not have a strong public service broadcaster akin to the BBC, which means that the electorate lack an unbiased source of political information. While only 38 per cent of adults regularly watch cable news, cable viewers tend to be the most engaged and consequently spend far more time with that platform than viewers of local or network news.

This is a worrying trend as many cable news networks are beholden to commercial interests and are unashamedly partisan. Fox News continues to be the largest such network by a distance and their anti-establishment narrative and habitual sensationalising of the threat posed by Islamic extremism has played a crucial hand in the evolution of both parties’ presidential campaigns.

America’s absurd campaign funding situation is also instrumental in determining the nature of the debate. Approximately $7 billion was spent during the 2012 election and 2016 is already set to easily outstrip this figure. The fact that these sums are disproportionately large donations from private individuals adds some legitimacy to the claim that politicians are no longer truly public servants but instead servants of their corporate paymasters.

Is it any wonder, then, that credible candidates for the presidency are repeatedly offering blunt policy solutions devoid of nuance and complexity? For instance, Ted Cruz, who is currently second behind Trump for the Republican nomination, believes that we can combat extremism in the Middle East by seeing if “sand can glow in the dark” (i.e. carpet bombing it into oblivion). While it is understandable that public opinion supports taking the fight to Islamic State, comments such as these serve to show how rhetoric is not an adequate substitute for maturity. Clearly, in such a crowded field, candidates have been especially keen to distinguish themselves in a bid to attract attention not only from registered voters but also those all-important donors.

All this blends together in a heady cocktail of public distrust in what is pejoratively termed ‘the Washington establishment’. Donald Trump’s rise from fringe figure to frontrunner is hardly surprising given that 71 per cent of Americans think political correctness has gone mad. Examples of involvement in congressional bipartisanship, such as Marco Rubio’s authoring of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, are not seen as displays of compromise between warring parties but instead as establishment collusion. At times, it feels as though the longer a candidate spends navigating the corridors of power, the less qualified they are considered for leadership of the free world.

Despairingly, this misguided disdain for experience has wreaked havoc in both parties. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders (a self-described socialist) somehow poses a genuine threat to Hillary Clinton. Despite the latter being extraordinarily well qualified and enjoying solid approval ratings as a result of her long exposure to the public eye, Sanders is only four points behind in Iowa and could be up by as much as 20 in New Hampshire. Evidently, both party bases are restless for change.

As a British-American dual citizen, I am increasingly concerned that Britain is on a similar path towards a dystopian emulation of the worst aspects of America’s political culture, as adversarial TV debates increasingly shift the media’s focus from policy to personality. Furthermore, the rise of Jeremy Corbyn not only shows how politics is increasingly conducted at the margins of public opinion but also how ruthless the media can be in its character assassinations. My fear is that Britain is beginning to pay too much heed to those voices who seek to replace order with chaos. It is only our collective sense of perspective and humour that threatens to derail the inevitable reduction of our politics to a circus.

Meanwhile, as I pessimistically survey the future ahead of our transatlantic cousins, I can only wish that a semblance of normality will return.