Michael, you focus on a literary metaphor that I used (which clearly labeled as a myth, a story or parable, not a fact) and miss the point that I am making. That point is that most (if not the great majority) of people have no problem submitting to an authority figure that has all the conventional attributes of power, but will resent an authority figures that looks wimpy. In the same vein, they will forgive people in power (like Kenneth Lay, for example) for screwing them up big time, but will cry for harsh punishment if a petty crook steals a penny from them.
In short, most people do not mind being screwed every which way by the powerful, but resent being wronged (even if in a minor way) by those perceived as weak inferior. What is more, who is powerful and who is weak is determined almost solely on superficial appearances and stereotypes. A tall good looking, tanned, arrogant guy who speaks with confidence of a simpleton (cf. Schwartz) is seen as powerful and revered by the masses. A wimpy-looking, short, bespectacled, person who speaks with reservations, uses them 5-dollar words an trying to explain complex points (like Gray or Gore) is seen as a weakling and resented by the masses if he occupies a hall of power.
There is a lot of sociological research that can be cited to support the above assessment (just go to sociological abstracts and search for "status generalization" "relative deprivation" or "reference group" as well as "authoritarian personality"- but I am way past the graduate school where I had to do the proper names dropping showing that I did my reading assignment to establish my credibility. Instead, I used story telling to get my point across - which is a well established, time-honored tradition, and also much less pompous and less boring than names dropping.
Wojtek