Ready, fire, aim!
FDR for all intents and purposed did assume dictatorial positions. And almost half the nation despised him for it. The other half were too dumb and too poor to care so long as they had more than before. You need to read current literature on how his presidency was viewed, other than the kiss-up jobs and candy-coated bios written during the post-war period after he was dead.
Oh Techie, what am I gonna do with you? On top of the nauseating arrogance, you applied a thick layer of cluelessness.
Ya see, I'm just finishing up "The Defining Moment" by Jonathon Alter, a recounting of--you guessed it--FDR's campaign and first one hundred days.
When was the last time you did any serious reading about FDR? Or for that matter anything?
Before FDR took office, and into his 100 days, there was a lot of talk, most of it approving, that he should become a dictator for the good of the country. William Randolph Hearst was a big proponent (his empire was threatened by the Depression), and even produced a feature film called "Gabriel over the White House", which he intended as nothing less than an instructional manual for FDR on how to be a proper dictator.
As Hearst sensed, the public--nearly catatonic that winter--was more ready than any time before or since to submit to a dictator. Mussolini was still widely popular in the United States that year. Hears thought the Italian strongman was "a marvelous man [who] takes care of every detail of his job." The famous broadcaster Lowell Thomas narrated a film called Mussolini Speaks in 1933 that featured an ad campaign calling it "A HIT. Because it appeals to all RED-BLOODED AMERICANS. Because it might be the answer to America's needs."
...
Some of the goals of these radical new approaches look prosaic in retrospect. The point of having a dictatorship, Bernard Baruch and others believed, was to balance the budget. The president needed the power to whip the government into shape--to cut through the meddling by bureaucrats and politicians and reduce government spending. In all its years of unpopularity, Congress had never been in such bad odor. Now maybe a new president would do something about it. Even a magazine like Commonweal, aimed at liberal Catholics, weighed in that Roosevelt should have "the powers of a virtual dictatorship to reorganize the government."
Walter Lippman, usually a voice for sanity, might have been expected to resist the call to dictatorship, but he embraced it. "A mild species of dictatorship will help us over the roughest spots on the road ahead," he wrote in his column. On February 1, Lippmann had traveled to Warm Springs for a meeting with Roosevelt and told him privately that he might have to assume the powers of a dictator for an unspecified period. FDR cannot have been thrilled to see the man who had heaped so much abuse upon him in the previous year, but he knew the columnist spoke for the American political establishment.
"The Definining Moment" by Jonathon Alter, pp 186-187. Transcribed by hand; typos are my responsibility.
You're badly misstating the climate of the times (you're just making it up as you go, aren't you?). FDR had every opportunity to become a dictator in exactly the same mold as Mussolini, few would have criticized, and many would have welcomed it. But he chose not to.
Try arguing from a position of knowledge some time. You might find the results surprisingly gratifying. And it makes revisionist history a bit easier to have at least one tiny factual hook on which to spin your yarns.