A good leader isn't, in a democracy. It's supposed to be rule by the people, not rule by whatever dictator can get past whatever bar we set. This is why debating where to put the bar and how to draw the line is doomed to fail - people will tend to support whatever system is more likely to return the dictator they themselves will prefer - which again often seems to be the candidate that will damage your opposition the most. Even the meme of "the lesser of two evils" seems to talk past this point entirely, because a dictator we must certainly have!
We need to get back to a much less powerful presidency, one we'd be comfortable leaving to Trump for a bit, but more importantly, one that he probably wouldn't be attracted to in the first place.
(Since we're harking back to ancient definitions of things: during the roman republic, that is, pre-Julius Caesar, dictator was a title given to a single person only in short periods of time, to deal with a crisis. During peacetime, power was with a large senate and two consuls, the latter only elected for a year. This a short and incorrect summary of the history, but TL;DR the pre-Caesar Romans would probably have considered the US president a dictator, regardless of third world cleptocrats hugging the contemporary definition)
We need to get back to a much less powerful presidency, one we'd be comfortable leaving to Trump for a bit, but more importantly, one that he probably wouldn't be attracted to in the first place.
(Since we're harking back to ancient definitions of things: during the roman republic, that is, pre-Julius Caesar, dictator was a title given to a single person only in short periods of time, to deal with a crisis. During peacetime, power was with a large senate and two consuls, the latter only elected for a year. This a short and incorrect summary of the history, but TL;DR the pre-Caesar Romans would probably have considered the US president a dictator, regardless of third world cleptocrats hugging the contemporary definition)