This piece in the Atlantic speaks to the perils of our type of Executive Branch and offers some incremental reforms.  Yglesias says something wise:

The American public and political class are both strangely complacent about institutional issues. There’s a tendency to become really unhappy about political outcomes and processes, but to give almost no thought to the idea that changing the rules that govern our institutions might be a potent way to relieve this unhappiness. Instead, we believe that a change of personnel will eliminate our unease—that George W. Bush will “change the tone” or Barack Obama will restore hope. Obviously, it really does matter a great deal who occupies our public offices. But on another level, if you want to change things you do need to look at the system in which people are operating.

Interestingly, at the municipal level you do see some experimentation with strong city councils, city managers, and the stripping of certain duties out of the executive.  Sometimes this is really bad for communities in that it creates gridlock.  But at least there is a willingness to experiment.  Some local charters – like the one in New Haven – actuall have a self-examination clause that force the local community to go through a process of re-adopting the charter.  Obviously, this makes it less political to suggest changes.  If the Founding Fathers had put such a clause in the original document, it might seem un-patriotic to not wonder out loud how to make the framework better.

I am optimistic that Americans can become more open to optimizing the federal level, but I am not sure of where the policy entrepreneurs that will advocate that will come from.