IIRC, Chernow's main criticism against Rockefeller is that he was extremely suspicious of his critics motives, but at the same time couldn't fathom that other people might honestly question his motives in using the immense power that he'd accumulated via his collusion with the railroads.

I don't think this was evil exactly (does Chernow actually call it that?). Rockefeller honestly believed in a sort of divine Corporatism, where economic success was a defacto indicator of divine grace. I doubt most people would agree with his premise, given that we have plenty of examples of evil, successful people.

But I think Rockefeller is a good example of how that kind of thinking can be twisted even if the person in question is generous (as Rockefeller certainly was). In his mind, his wealth meant he was a good person, and since he was a good person, there was no problem in his colluding to block other, less wealthy (and thus, less moral) people from taking part of the pie. And people who questioned his motives were obviously being duplicitous. This led to a kind of circular logic, where his wealth justified his actions in accumulating ever more wealth.