I don't think it's any better than an American politician but still a far cry from those who felt that politicians should serve their communities for a few years and then go back to an actual career.
That's a very loaded and negative way to portray a career politician, but more importantly it's also completely unsubstantiated -- how is this relevant to Vestager?
For instance, why do you use the word "pander" to describe her work? Pander means to "gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.)". I think that sort of language should be used carefully, and at the very least it should be substantiated in terms of how it relates to the person you're talking about.
I've followed Vestager's career for over 15 years, and I don't think your characterization of her work is accurate at all. You might be able to clarify why you describe her that way, and that seems to be necessary for a substantive discussion on this.
> I don't think it's any better than an American politician
There are great American politicians for sure, but one thing I would note here is that there are significant differences in public trust and corruption levels between the US and Denmark (where Vestager has spent the vast majority of her public life). There's a high level of accountability, public scrutiny and public interest in how politicians work, and corruption is very low [0].
I think this plays a role in terms of how "good" the politicians are "on average" in a country, and to what degree they can be trusted.
[0] Corruption is obviously hard to quantify, but one way to measure/approximate it is the Corruption Perceptions Index [0] where "Denmark is the least corrupt country in the world, ranking consistently high among international financial transparency", and the U.S. ranked 18th in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
Career politicians create the "political class" which eventually over time becomes a corrupted class.
What the OP meant, is that a country is best served by normal citizens, or specialist (in their industry), helping out, getting elected, serving their term, and moving on with their private lifes, then people that pursue politics for the politics sake. They will/tend to create dramma, even when it is not there.
"Political class, or political elite is a concept in comparative political science originally developed by Italian political theorist theory of Gaetano Mosca (1858–1941). ... Elected legislatures may become dominated by subject-matter specialists, aided by permanent staffs, who become a political class."
I personally don't think that the battles Vestager/the EC are picking are out of touch with the competition and antitrust challenges faced by the EU, US and world as a whole. It'd be interesting if someone could explain how Vestager's extensive political career disqualifies her. In fact, it's worth considering that it might be exactly what qualifies her / has made her more effective than her predecessors (and US counterparts); perhaps this level of political and regulatory experience is necessary in order play a meaningful role, and protect the interests of the people she and the EU represents?
By the way, I don't think the Athenian version of democracy is particularly relevant here (or most discussions about modern democracies for that matter). Governing a very small 5th century BC city is completely different from governing regions comprising hundreds of millions of people in societies that are vastly more developed and complex.
The Athenian model wasn't exactly developed to address the challenges that we're facing today - although some ideas, such as how long a politician should serve, can still have value. That does however at best seem like a tangential discussion with little significance in the context of this article.
My point was not to attack her but the entire concept of a political class as described by other commenters. It's likely very different in Europe but having a ruling class is seen as more distasteful when looked at from the viewpoint of the founding principals of the US. E.g the New Hampshire state legislature has a salary of $100/year which would make being nothing but a professional politician rather difficult. I believe one of the other responses better summed up the historical viewpoints.