The Executive was not intended to be a priestly figure leading the national dialogue on issues of relevance to different communities. Any such attempt to attribute grand meaning to the presidency is wrong and in contrast to the Founders’ intent.
Here is the paradox I’m seeing. If a candidate for president says: “I will do my best to follow the laws set by Congress”, that candidate is not likely to win the election. But the candidate who says “I will fix things and I am willing to use whatever leverage my office to fix things” is more likely to win. So therefore, the USA is apt to elect “doers” rather “follow the constitutioners”. I’m not seeing a good balance here.
But there used to a good balance. Originally the election of the President was supposed to be an indirect election: citizens elect their legislators → legislators elect the electors → the electors elect the president.
The electors would likely be experienced legislators who kind of knew each other. They would be in a better position to determine which of them would be better to be a president who follows the laws Congress.
But when this process was scrapped, we elect presidents to (rightly or wrongly) get things done.
The founding fathers got this indirect election absolutely right — if their goal was to have the president as a caretaker of the laws made by Congress.
But the USA cannot have a caretaker president who is elected by some version of a popular vote (to which the electoral college has become).