In a (real) democracy that's usually much harder to do, since there are many more decision makers who have to act on something, and even if there are a few emotional ones, the rest can keep cool heads and restrict them and make decisions for the long term future of the country.
Whatever makes you think most of them give a sh*t about "the long term future of the country"?
Hitler, strangely enough, actually did ... just very very poorly.... That's actually something he had in common with what I might call some of the "first generation revolutionary dictators", like Lenin (New Economic Policy) and Mao (where country != the people, who he believed to be very expendable in part because there were so many). But the 2nd generation, such as Stalin, or those who didn't actually do the revolution thing, like Ceaușescu ... I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.
Or from a more Machiavellian perspective, they know their position is ultimately a temp job. Obama will be gone soon, but Putin will stay. Obama has no incentive to build up some massive cult of personality like dictators do. Its unneeded. Dictators, on the other hand, rule by the fist and part of that fist is building some asinine strongman personality for the borscht eaters who buy into that crap.
From personal experience: I've talked to people I know from Russia, who are supportive of the current regime. What either ends the conversation or gets misdirected in nanoseconds is the question "What's in it for you?" when discussing the gov't decisions. For example, even without the sanctions, the Crimea annexation would cost the Russian taxpayer an insane amount, but as far as I could tell people supporting the decision tend to forget that fact.
<sarcasm> Because nothing says "valid political concerns", like a cyber attack on a foreign government. </sarcasm>