Zak':

You're not really calling for a revolution, you know. Revolutions occur when peoples rights, lives, and property are substantially threatened. Our revolution would never have gotten off the ground without the Stamp Act, the attempt to strictly enforce the Navigation Act, The Quartering Act, and -- possibly the greatest threat -- Britain's attempt to close off the frontier. Without those pressures, the words of Rousseau and Locke alone would not have done the trick. You point to the classic "panem et circum" reasons why the US population is not closer to revolt -- with some truth -- but you need to acknowledge the basic issue: life in the USA is pretty good and there is substantial opportunity for most individuals to improve things for themselves and their families along with a good deal of personal freedom to speak/do/think. Such conditions do not lend themselves to revolution.

The change between the republic of the founders and the republic we enjoy today is substantial, but it was accomplished in smaller well-meaning steps since the inception of the republic. There is simply no impetus for dictatorship -- a crisis profound enough that might lend itself to such has only existed twice in our history -- ACW and the 1930s. Both resulted in relatively powerful presidencies (each of whom contributed significantly to the cumulative changes that have altered the republic) but neither man approached dictatorial power though both held the office until their deaths. The key difference between the repulbic of then and the one of our present has been the slow aggrandizement of political power into the hands of the federal government and its bureaucracy at the expense of the power of the several states.

Some of the Steps:

Marshall's assumption of the role of "arbiter of the Constitution" on behalf of the Supreme Court. Article III notes that:

Quote Originally Posted by Article III, Constitution of the United States
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Marshall changed this to appellate review that defines the constitutionality of a law or some aspect of the process of justice.

Jefferson -- the man who wrote that allowing a President to stand for more than one term was an invitation to dictatorship -- calmly standing for his own second term (Jefferson accepted Washington's 2-term limitation on the office) and using the break-up of the federalists as a means to guarantee his party's domination of the Presidency for decades. No evidence exists that suggests that Burr was pursuing any "party" ambition when he shot Hamilton, but Burr did thereby end the career of the one person who might have brought the federalists back to power. Jefferson used this to his advantage.

Lincoln's declaration of secession as being unconstitutional, thereby binding any state to permanent membership in the federal system. While in office, Lincoln used the absence of Southern representation to pass the Homestead Act, Federal support for the development of a transcontinental railroad, the secession of West Virginia from Virginia (this being deemed constitutional as apparently only the federal constitution was binding in perpetuity) and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by fiat.

Theodore Roosevelt's assumption of the role on behalf of the federal government as primary regulator for all aspects of commerce within the United States. The initial goal was to prevent trusts and monopolies and to minimize child labor (good goals), but the result was to change the federal government from the key regulator of INTERSTATE and INTERNATIONAL commerce into the regulator of ALL commerce.

Then we have the 16th (Income Tax) and 17th ammendments (Direct Election of Senators). Both well intentioned, but both resulting in a huge increase in federal power at the expense of the several states.

Franklin Roosevelt, of course, expanded the role of government into nearly every facet of the economy and went about crafting programs that made the federal government the "safety net" for almost everything. Since that era, our states have been little more than districts for counting votes -- all the real decisions are made in Washington. Subsequent administrations-- almost without exception -- have heightened this effect (only Reagan didn't and he only by degrees).

A far cry from where we started.