If you think about it for a bit, basically all political commentary boils down to veiled calls for a dictator. Sometimes the call is highly-veiled, sometimes, it’s not.
Everyone has a plan to solve our problems – no one’s plan is to consult "the People" and do what it wants, whatever that may be. Everyone will speak for the People, but the People has no clue – it’s a worthless oracle.
Mario Rizzo suggests that this is what happens when government gets too big:
This problem is the result of government previously exceeding the limits of the true general-welfare or minimal state and developing, in a case-by-case manner, into an unsustainable welfare-state Leviathan. This is the outgrowth of the “non-ideological” or “pragmatic” approach to policy making: finding specific problems and coming up with specific programs with no thought of the overall world we are producing.
The solution to this problem may now actually require further centralization of power to the executive branch and a diminution of legislative control.
This answer is fine, but in order to keep government small . . . you guessed it . . . you need a dictator.
I think it used to be common knowledge that occasionally, governmental systems need to clean house. The US has found ways to do it in the past. What were Lincoln and FDR if not dictators?
I suspect we’ll find a way to do it again – we need to.