Notably, Pisistratus was a very successful leader, despite bringing a tyranny that defeated the arisocracy completely. Poets and playwrights (I think) gathered at his court to enunciate the virtues of the reborn state. People generally stayed on the farm and prospered, rather than flooding into the cities in search of work and food. (One historian said that they didn't come to the cities because their pro-Pisistrates garments would be laughed at.)
I would say things are going just as one might have thought they would go, with the rise of a businessman from New Amsterdam. (Who, it should be noted, was relentlessly publicized on network television for many years.) Both the tactics and the alliances are what one might have expected. And the successes have been real, because running public policy with the herrschaft methods of private industry is like having a pro baseball player as a ringer in the company softball game. But the point of the company softball game isn't always about softball. And in the political realm, the success of an executive doesn't make a state. (See every book written by a king for his son, 1300-1650.) Statecraft, which is the game the others at the table are playing, is a more complicated endeavour.
That's the logical view. The best response from the paritsans of the current leader would be that the corporate mindset rewrites the rules of politics, and allows politicians to be more effective. All well and good, and the quintessence of the sort of pragmatism that birthed the phenomenon, but we have been here before. An expansionist corporate state led by a fellow whom they called their "guide." Perhaps because the image of the effectiveness of the leader was the only thing fashioning the state.
Things could still turn out well. But the aristocracy, even if kept from effectively governing things, does need to stake out a position in the collective mind. The idea of the Aeropagus, an institution for which the present leader has no use, must somehow persist.