Compared to parliamentary systems, presidential systems have some advantages and disadvantages.

One that works both ways is presidential democracies usually have more checks and balances. Prime ministers backed by a majority can enact their agenda with little resistance, which is either good or bad, depending on your perspective. Overall, I’d say checks and balances are good, because the downside of tyranny of the majority is greater than the frustration of occasionally gridlocked government.

And it’s not like parliamentary systems are immune to authoritarianism — with 1930s Germany the obvious example. Other examples, whether from parliamentary or presidential democracies, aren’t as drastic, but presidential systems can slip into authoritarianism as well, as seen in Erdogan’s Turkey. In that case, control of security services plus support from about half the country equals increasingly consolidated power.

The United States isn’t immune to that, though America’s democratic culture is older and stronger. However, a similar dynamic of enthusiastic support from a large minority plus the acquiescence of others could equal a move in an autocratic direction.

The Founders clearly envisioned the possibility a president would abuse his power and try to place himself and his family/cronies/patrons above the law. But they didn’t think Congress would be okay with it.