First, a couple of minor corrections - male suffrage in the Athens of Pericles' day was not universal; it was in the hands of those wealthy enough to afford a suit of armor, and their corresponding obligation was to employ the latter in violent defense of the city. These were the hoplites. And Caesar was not the first Roman autocrat; that distinction belonged to Sulla, who let him live despite his relationship to Sulla's rival Marius (Caesar was his nephew). The "fall" of the Roman republic is a rather deep topic, actually, and I get the sense Mr. Lewis might want to consult Machiavelli on the topic before he concludes that the republic was either better or worse than the two monarchies between which it was sandwiched.
Those matters aside, we are left to contemplate the willing subjugation of a polis to a self-identified ruling class which is more or less exclusive based on familial relationships. I disagree completely that this "tends" to run in families; it does, however, attempt to propagate itself that way, naturally enough, until a more talented, forceful, or ruthless competitor kicks the thing over and assumes his or her own "natural" rule. A "natural" ruler may attempt to teach it to his or her children with more or less, mostly less, success.
Here I defy Plato utterly. He was well-reasoned, coherent, and completely mistaken. The yearning for a philosopher-king is what brings us sensational nonentities such as Barack Hussein Obama. He isn't my better in any sense, and I take the position of the ranch foreman Forbis quoted after being asked who his master was: "The son of a bitch hasn't been born yet." Nor will he be.
Let me be even more blunt - I reject autocracy as a false and deceptive refuge in order that is intolerable to any free man or woman, a sad recourse of an individual caught between gangs of armed thugs who must compromise or die. I reject autocrats and would-be autocrats as fools, poseurs, and justifiable objects of target practice. The first one stupid enough to say "I am your natural ruler" out loud had better by God be wearing body armor.
I honestly don't care what patterns Mr. Lewis flatters himself that he has discerned among the peoples he has visited and evidently comprehended to an astonishing degree. I've done a little traveling myself and I gently suggest he's underestimating them. The notion that human beings do not desire freedom is a lie. It is a lie.
As for political freedom, I think that for most people around the world the freedom to live, work, and raise their children in peace is freedom enough, and to hell with whatever else the government does.
Obama is your better in at least one sense: he is better at getting people to follow him. And you may rest assured that there are many people in this world who are your master in every field of endeavor. The same is true for all of us. The only man with no master is the dead man. As Dylan said, "You gotta serve somebody".
PS — I know Sulla was dictator prior to Julius Caesar; however, I chose not to mention it because he had neither charisma nor will to power. He later renounced the title (and the power that accompanied it) in favor of writing his memoirs. Gaius Julius did not, and with his dictatorship began the entity that became the Imperium. Furthermore I don't hold that the Empire was necessarily better in a moral or philosophical sense than were the Kingdoms; it was, however, a much more successful social system. It lasted 1,779 years, after all — and, some say, exists still.