I think you got this backwards. If the RfA process is so strict and everyone then "trusts" the people who are made admins, surely that makes it much easier for those admins to wreak havoc (whether intentional or not). Surely *that* makes the whole project more unworkable.
When I say it's about trust, and not trustworthyness, that's because most people that use Wikipedia *are* trustworthy, and aren't going to wreak havoc. That is the premise to all these discussions about making it easier to become an admin - that more people are trustworthy than those than get through RfA. If that's not true, then RfA isn't broken, and we have nothing to discuss.
I accept that making many more people admins would not result in many wreaking havoc, however, it would result in an ungodly number of false complaints about admins wreaking havoc. That is what I mean when I say the community needs to trust admins.
Adminship should not have anything to do with trust at all. Adminship should be synonymous with innocence. Not being allowed the admin tools should be a penalty, and a penalty should only be applied when someone does something wrong, no sooner.
If we were in Utopia, I would agree with you 100%, however, we are in the real world, and we need to base our decisions on logic, not ideology.