If I wanted to be a dictator, I would fund libertarian free speech propaganda aimed at the right wing. Then the unprincipled Left would use their freedom to promote subversion to capture the priestly institutions such as media and academia, and use their newfound power to enrich themselves. The resulting looting, from smashing windows to smashing replicable science, would generate so much chaos and destruction that the right and center would insist upon a dictator to restore order.
Then I would merely need to retain my sanity and competence in an insane world, uttering populist bromides that are rightist now but were centrist 50 years ago, while gradually consolidating executive power and imprisoning priestly gangsters.
By the way, dictator is an office of the Roman Republic, similar to a president with emergency powers. I suspect you meant to call me literally Hitler, who was a tyrant after he dispensed with the Weimar Republic. But he was popular, so perhaps "king" is a better name. There were plenty of incompetent kings, after all, and new lines typically rose to power by violence. A tyrant oppresses the majority by the support of a militarized minority, whereas a king defends the people from oppressive elites.
But kings are blessed by the state church! Yes, and Hitler's ascension was blessed by the organs of propaganda and higher thought, the modern cathedral.
Certainly the Kim dynasty of North Korea qualifies as kingly by now, so socialist propaganda is no obstacle to the appellation. That socialist kings usually fail to perpetuate their royal lines is unremarkable, in light of the fact that socialist countries mainly perpetuate bread lines. Caesar's tripartite checklist is bread, circuses and bribed Praetorians. Socialism performs dismally on two out of three. Hence they commonly appear to be humorless military "dictatorships", apopleptic with envy of and paranoid over persecution by the wealthy, wily West. This explains the ludicrous pretense that they are merely republics with extraordinarily stable executive preferences.
But in this usage, "dictator" is merely a euphemism for "tyrant", meant to imply as much by the Associated Press without compromising its veneer of impartiality, which the CIA finds so helpful for programming rubes. Calling every Dear Leader without a crown a "dictator" implies that the arc of history bends towards democratic republics, something even Mr. Fukuyama is now embarrassed to assert. If we simply acknowledged them as kings, they might relax with all the goose-stepping and worry a bit more about bread and sitcoms.