Here, the only sentence that seems to present a broad idea linking the remaining statements is C. It introduces an overarching theme: {"A different though related strand of thought is equalitarian."} This sets the stage for discussing equalitarian ideals and their implications. 

Sentences A, B and D can also be linked together - the block A-B-D appears to form a cause-and-effect chain: A (preventing power concentration) → B (philosophical aversion to exceptionalism) → D (societal backlash against leaders). We can further flesh out the reasoning as follows -

Sentence A provides a real-world example of the aforementioned equalitarian ideals in action: {"In those countries where the ideals of liberty and equality have received the greatest devotion [...] the political constitution has been framed [...] to make impossible too great a concentration of power." Here, A directly connects to C by showing how equalitarian principles shape political systems (e.g., America’s constitution). Sentence B then explains why such systems exist philosophically: {"A philosophy that emphasizes the likeness of all men will be averse from recognizing those exceptional qualities in any individual [...]."}  This answers the question: Why do equalitarian societies design systems to prevent power concentration? B justifies the political structure described in A by highlighting the philosophical aversion to exceptional leaders.

Sentence D illustrates the consequence of this philosophy for leaders: {"When circumstances make it necessary for a particular individual to display qualities of leadership [...] his position is under constant and bitter attack [...]."} Thus, D builds on B by showing how the suppression of exceptionalism (explained in B) leads to societal suspicion of strong leaders, reinforcing A’s point about preventing power concentration.

Hence, we can make a strong case for the arrangement C-A-B-D (Option B).