The Constitution, and constitutional systems of government have always had a weakness - one they share with every form of democratic government. It has been pointed out since Plato. Where authorities are chosen not on the basis of their ability to govern, but on their popularity, you will get leaders more concerned with their popularity - the source of their power - than with the proper governing of the state.
Plato saw Athens thrown into a series of ruinous wars by politicians who riled up the voters into a patriotic furor in order to advance their own careers. Sound familiar at all? Generals and leaders were selected at the will and whim of the people, who regularly replaced competent, but uncharismatic leaders with popular, but incompetent ones. The disaster of the Peloponnesian War resulted, and the democratic government of Athens fell to the "Rule of Thirty Tyrants," an oligarchistic faction installed by the victorious Spartans.
The founders of our country believed that the American people would avoid this fate by avoiding the dangers of political faction (Federalist 10,) which facilitates the elevation of electability over suitability, and by appealing to the civic spirit of the citizenry. Further, they designed a system in which competing centers of power would "check" individual ambition. They also wrote into the founding law a series of prohibitions to prevent the government from taking steps toward autocracy. It is not for nothing that the Bill of Rights begins with "Congress shall make no law..."
Good government requires a sufficient degree of knowledge and understanding, and democracy in particular presupposes a competent citizenry. The founders hoped that by practice and education, the voters could be elevated to be competent governors of their state. Benjamin Franklin, being immensely experienced (and also among the wisest observers of human nature and governance that ever lived) thought that such optimism was laudable, but questionable over the long term. This is the basis of his answer when asked what sort of government the new nation had been given, replied, "A republic. If you can keep it."
We have been coasting on the intellectual momentum of the Enlightenment for 300 years now. Our voting public is subject to emotional manipulation on a mass scale, and with expertise that our founders could not have envisioned. The speed of communication, and the factionalism that has been encouraged by those hungry for power has rendered our state largely ungovernable. The consequences - and the likely future - is plain to see for anyone with a grasp of history.
What is required is new thinking - an intellectual renaissance equal to that which brought us Voltaire, Diderot, D'Alembert, Montesquieu, Hume, Jefferson, Mendelssohn and Kant. We need new answers, and we need them now. The old answers are insufficient for our world. We must seek, find, and implement a new way of thinking. Now.