Over my lifetime (I'm 65), America has shifted from the notion that the president is a public servant to his being the Imperial President 
.
Perhaps interestingly, the shift to the Imperial Presidency corresponds to a tacit admission that it's because we can't expect the president to have the classic virtues.
In 1812 (after he had been President), Thomas Jefferson wrote that emergencies might arise that would *require* a President to break the law for the good of the country. But then he is *also* required to "throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives. ” Presumably, if they thought his decision was correct, a jury would not convict him. (Contrary to what the judiciary would like us to believe, jury nullification is valid and can indeed be seen as a duty in such cases.)
The Roberts Supreme Court, however, ruled that "a president inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office” . Poor little apprehensive baby!
I'm being deliberately insulting to highlight that this seems to indicate the Presidency is actually weak, not an iron-willed, strong Leader. However, the opinion overflows with words about how much the Founders of the Constitution wanted an "energetic and vigorous" President. They “sought to encourage energetic, vigorous, decisive, and speedy execution."
Congress and the Courts are supposed to be "deliberative," but the President is there to move fast and break things. Strong! Decisive! We must not put obstacles in his way.
Sounds kinda fashy.