the missing piece of the essay is the question of whether "political entrepreneurs" should be considered legitimate.
Using group dynamics to achieve power is just a reality of human nature, as Elezier points out.
But Elezier jumps from this fat to assume that we should then be concerned about the unequal distribution of power between most people and the few political entrepreneurs (aka "power seekers").
It's hard to argue that all power seekers are bad, even if all do use group dynamics to gain and keep power.
So how to we determine which power seekers we consider legitimate?
Using group dynamics to achieve power is just a reality of human nature, as Elezier points out.
But Elezier jumps from this fat to assume that we should then be concerned about the unequal distribution of power between most people and the few political entrepreneurs (aka "power seekers").
It's hard to argue that all power seekers are bad, even if all do use group dynamics to gain and keep power.
So how to we determine which power seekers we consider legitimate?