For many years, the Democratic party had a strong institutional base in the labor movement, big city and Southern political machines, and to some extent the Catholic Church and its hierarchy. The labor movement is down to representing about 11 percent of the non-farm workforce, and the most active unions are the service sector and public employee unions, and the public unions operate at a disadvantage because their workers are paid by, and often pitted against, the taxpayers. The Democratic urban and Southern machines are gone, and the Catholic churches are no longer Democratic preserves. So the party really does lack an institutional (non-political) base from which to build an organized movement. That's a huge problem that faces the Democrats. Maybe not in the next two or four years if Trump and the Republican leadership sufficiently alienate the electorate, but over the long haul.
I used to think that the virtual communities created by the internet could replace the union hall, neighborhood pub and other popular institutions. The internet has proven effective in organizing demonstrations, and in allowing functioning groups to communicate. Our neighborhood organization operates largely through a listserve. But it's no panacea, as the experience of Moveon.org and similar groups can testify.
We do still have Big Academia. That's better than nothing!
Marshall notes Republicans rely on their institutions to buttress and reinforce their party principles and agenda. These private and civic institutions keep their politicians in line, fund the party apparatus, and serve as proving and training grounds for their troops.
In one of my less incendiary essays (What's next after labor unions are gone?) , which of course was little noticed, I wondered what Democrats will do after the last labor union turns off the lights. How could we actually harness power outside of politics? Because it is actually the private, civic, and social institutions that affect daily life more than anything else.
Now Josh notes that internet and organizing and all such tools seem to, sometimes, work pretty good in an election. But what about life when there isn't an election afoot? The old union halls we're not just places where you heard politicians come to shake hands. They were part of a fabric of civic institutions that reinforced a community's political power. Problem among our voters, our core voters, is that they aren't necessarily amenable to these old ways. In my maternal Grandfather's day, it was pretty obvious what to do. He was a union man, a Mason, member of his local VFW, devout Southern Baptist, etc. My father did basically the same: shop steward, deacon, Mason, local committeeman, etc.
I do none of this, except for church. I did pledge a frat in college but I'm not especially active. I am a member of no vets organizations, but I donate. I don't know many of my peers who decided to become traveling men or are even especially active in their unions if they have them. People are just kind of on their own. We can organize around a single event or purpose here in my neighborhood. That happens. But to have the kind of bowling league/lodge/union hall/parish hall life of my ancestors just seems not only alien, but not particularly desirable.
My kids... just eschew hierarchy and organization of any kind except in the most temporary of circumstances. Much like the Internet they grew up with, it's just a wide open unregulated world of everything all at once and nothing in particular and you're in it all by yourselfie.
I don't know any more than Josh about what to do about it. But with the basic foundation of the Democratic Party (unions) headed for the trauma unit, something obviously needs to be done. Something new. Something different. Something relevant to the times and looking to the future.