Wait a second...

I see your point about the greater expectation of the citizenry in regards to what they receive from the government... "results", as you say.  FDR could very well have put himself in a role as "provider" more than he did a "leader" and that is not good, intentional or otherwise.

But lets not confuse the excellent point you made earlier.  You said the Founders were "interested" in the process of government, and not the results.  I took that to mean they were "motivated" by the process of how government would operate, not by what government would do.  In that regard, there is merit in what Obama said about a charter of negative liberties... they only ever intended to specify what government COULD NOT do, the boundaries that government could not cross.  In doing so, they specified what inherent rights the government recognized as greater than itself, and thus what it must always protect above all else.  It is the ideal blueprint for a government charter... you can go this far, and no further.  The rest is up to the people elected and filling the offices of government itself.  In short, the role government plays in the lives of the citizenry, as long as it doesn't deny the rights protected already, is outside of the realm of what the Founder's planned at all, isn't it?

As harmful as you may think FDR and his policies were to America in the 1930's and beyond, by the very definitions you seem to espouse of the role that a "leader" like the PotUS must take, FDR did what the people mandated he do.  Had the status quo of previous President's and their policies sufficed, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to accomplish any of the "bad" things we keep talking about.  His "ideology" wouldn't have appealed to the voting public at all.