Better media. I’m not saying all news is fake but when your business model is based on anger (make the reader angry; get more clicks and views), it’s obviously going to have detrimental effects on the citizens.
And just to be clear, this isn’t just a conservative media thing. All of them are doing it.
“Decent people shouldn’t live here. They’d be happier someplace else.”
–Jack Napier, Batman (1989)
Communication isn’t the answer.
The problem with politics is politics. If you try to stand up and do what is right, you will be outvoted by assholes who have no morals and will gladly band together just to outvote you, regardless of what they really think.
The way that you succeed in politics is to play the game. You make sleazy back room deals, add pork into bills so that other politicians will agree to vote for it, or vote for things you don’t believe in just to remain loyal to your party, because if you don’t then you’ll be ostracized by your party and your fellow party members won’t vote for your bills no matter how good they are, just because they want to punish you for being disloyal.
So how do you convince good people to spend day after day, week after week, and year after year, constantly dealing with sleazebag politics?
There’s an old saying. Politics isn’t the world’s oldest profession, but it does seem to have a lot in common with it.
I often wonder about the whole idea of political parties. Over here we supposedly vote for individuals, but even among the 70% or so of registered electors that actually voted, I doubt that many could name their MP. They put a cross in the box against the party they (often vaguely) support.
Seems like there are really two aspects- how do we attract good candidates, AND how do we repel the bad ones?
As far as repelling the bad ones goes, I’d say that some way to prevent them from using office as a springboard to sweetheart deals, sinecures, six-figure speaking deals, free lunches in perpetuity, etc… would be a start.
The 2-ply filter on the bitter coffee of democracy is journalists and voters. The journalists tell people what the politicians have been up to, and the voters kick the bums out. I think the media does a decent enough job on their end, and the issue is less government by the worst people than elected by the worst people. Poll after poll indicates that our biggest policy issues aren’t supported by the general population.
The solution would be mandatory voting with policies to enable it and penalties for treating it like jury duty.
First we need to make some better people.
It’s taking longer than we thought
Boris Johnson (recent UK Prime Minister) was a weak version of Trump (Johnson stuck with ‘appearances’ rather than policies and lied a lot. 
)
However we did kick him out before his term of office was up. 
We then got Liz Truss as a replacement (a sort of Marjorie Taylot Greene), who was so incompetent that we kicked her out of office in just 44 days! 
I’m sorry that there is a cult around Trump in the US - even Thatcher never had that sort of blind adulation.
I tend to think the problem with the political systems in countries like Canada, the US, and the UK is they are working more or less as they were designed to work. They were designed from the top down so economic elites could use the power of the state–laws, borrowing power, taxation, police, judiciary, military–to pursue their own ends at home and abroad. Popular protest expanded the franchise, but did little to actually empower people; some reforms have been won, but they are often reversed.
Add to that entrenched divisions of region, ethnicity, gender, class, and more in these societies, and there are lots of reasons we “can’t all get along.” And these political systems encourage politicians and parties to lump and split electorates for their own purposes rather than seek common solutions.
Liz Truss is nothing like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Liz Truss is within the bounds of a normal politician.
I agree that Marjorie Taylor Greene is horrible - but Truss got sacked from the top job in record time (apparently it was 50 days.)
She was compared to a lettuce!
Equally, or does one side excell at it?
Which often translates into the party they fear the least, which is far from ideal (and often a function of the first-past-the-post electoral system we employ for our general elections).
I think the vast majority of the media does a decent enough job of distorting things in order to manipulate their consumers in the direction their owners desire. This is also far from ideal, and usually leads to the opposite of solving the problem posed by the OP.
And yet, Truss was swiftly booted out of office and MTG is likely to finish (and quite possibly extend) her term without difficulty. In other words, the UK is probably not (yet) as extremist as the US when it comes to partisanship in politics.
Are there any countries that have done this well?
Okay. I don’t really understand the comparison, though. MTG is well-known because of her political extremism and espousal of conspiracy theories, not for getting removed from office in a short period of time, like Liz Truss. Anyway, this is straying from the theme of the thread.
I just found this. Will be browsing it throughout the day:
https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/civic-engagement/
Truss was also politically extreme as far as mainstream UK politics goes, and was swiftly removed as a result. Whereas MTG has not been removed. Which, relevant to the OP, suggests that maybe the UK system is doing a slightly better job of moving towards the OP’s goal, on that evidence. Albeit it could fairly be likened to a comparison between a feather and a bubble as to which is the heaviest.
There is this. People “want someone like them but more of a leader”. Apparently, this does not have to include empathy or exclude those who are impersonal robots off the stump.
Seems to me it would hurt. Attracting people who are greedy for money is likely to attract people with limited morals/ethics and various degrees of narcissism.
Better educated voters, who seek out and vote according to actual information, not according to nonsense phrases.
How we accomplish that, I don’t know.
If I could think of a practical way to do it, I’d argue that candidates for any state or federal office should need to have lived on minimum wage for at least two years within the previous 15 years.
However, even if we could get that one passed (and it would probably have to be a constitutional amendment), it would in practice rule out anybody with minor children who wasn’t already living on minimum wage, as otherwise it would be drastically unfair to the kids.
The kicker there is in that last sentence. Who’s going to be doing the vetting?
Based on anger and fear; though the two are closely entangled. And yes, that’s certainly part of the problem.