I believe that this turn from character to quandary was a profound mistake, for two reasons. First, it weakens morality and limits its scope. Where the ancients saw virtue and character at work in everything a person does, our modern conception confines morality to a set of situations that arise for each person only a few times in any given week...

I agree very much with this. I like consequentialism for dealing with the high-stakes stuff like trolley scenarios, but humdrum everyday ethics involves scenarios more like:

"Should I have said something when my boss subtly put down Alice just now?"

"Should I cut this guy off? I need to get a move on, I'm late for class."

"This old lady can barely stand while the bus is moving, but nobody is getting up. I'm already standing, but should I say something to this drunk man who's slouching across two seats? Or is it not worth the risk of escalating him?"

"This company is asking me for an estimate on some work, but there is significant peripheral work that will have to be done afterward, which they don't seem to realize. If I am hired, I can perform the requested work, then charge high force-account rates for the extra work (as per our contract) and make a killing. But it could hurt their business severely. Should I tell them about their mistake?"

It's not that these can't be analyzed via consequentialism, it's that they're much more amenable to virtue ethical thought.