I'm convinced that at our core, we humans are all quite similar. A lot of defiant people throughout history were forced to flee their home countries or stay low-key because of violent suppression. I can imagine very few things more defiant than refusing to back down on demands for freedom despite usage of live ammo and tanks, but that defiance still didn't prevent China's dictatorship from ending the Tiananmen protests. Even armed revolutionaries have been successfully suppressed at multiple points and in various places in the past. Throughout history, brute force has sadly worked effectively far too often to establish and maintain dictatorships regardless of defiant opposition or lack thereof.
I agree that a dictatorship wouldn't work in the US, but that's mainly because of two things. First, there's too much separation of powers and difficulty in changing the Constitution for a dictator to be able to consolidate power to the point where he would be able to use the required force to crack down on dissent. Even if he somehow got most of the Congress on his side, there would still be too much opposition within other branches of government for him to reach Stalin or Khomeini levels of power.
Second, by this point in its history, the US just seems to me too armed for a dictatorship to be sustainable, at least not without becoming a Pyrrhic victory for the dictator. The government's tanks, helicopters, and rifles would still outgun the vast majority of civilians' firearms, but I think there would still be a noticeable and heavy cost to the dictator and his state apparatuses—probably so heavy as to render such a brutal dictatorship either extremely unlikely or downright suicidal. All of that is assuming the military and police would even agree to work with him in the first place—which would probably be a huge long shot—instead of just overthrowing him or helping other branches of government to do so.
So I definitely don't think the US needs a dictator or will have one anytime soon, if ever, but that's not because of any specific traits like defiance, being chaotic, etc. It's because the required measures to suppress the human desires for freedom and prosperity just wouldn't be achievable.
You make some good points, although even dictators have to work with a bureaucracy and a chain of command. While brute force is usually effective for keeping people in line, people are also quite clever in keeping up the appearance of obedience while still doing their own thing.
Also, some dictators can also be kind of clever in making it appear that the government is
not a "dictatorship," at least not on paper. And if anything appears oppressive or horrible, then it's blamed on some lower level official who "went rogue." During the purges of the 1930s, it was referred to as the "Yezhovshchina," after Yezhov, the head of the NKVD at the time. Ultimately, Yezhov himself would be purged. The former head, Yagoda, was also purged. Through a Western lens, their show trials and official government were generally presented as more of a cynical farce, where the real power centered around Stalin and his role as General Secretary, which was a post chosen by the Politburo and Central Committee. Theoretically, he could have been removed at any time, by the Politburo, Central Committee, or even at a Party Congress, where his popularity may have been waning. They still had a constitution and a quasi-democratic structure - although it didn't really work to prevent a dictatorship.
It was somewhat similar in Germany, where Hitler became Chancellor and then was given dictatorial powers through the Enabling Act, which became official through the legal processes of the established government. It was supposed to only be a "temporary" emergency decree, but it lasted 12 years and left Germany and most of Europe in ruins. But they still ostensibly wanted to make it appear as "legitimate" as possible.
One thing that seemed normal to the Germans was to give an oath directly to Hitler as the supreme commander and "Fuhrer," whereas I don't think Americans could really give an oath to a single person, whether it's a "Fuhrer," "Tsar," "King/Queen." We've never really done that here in America. It's just not part of our political culture.
