> Of course popular understanding of systemic forces is close to nil. The
> "plain folks of the land" (to quote the memorable HL Mencken) prefer
> anthropomorphic explanations based on personal power, influences,
> ideologies, conspiracies etc, because that is what they can understand. I
> find it mildly amusing, however, when sophisticated people who certainly
> have a good grasp of systemic explanations fall for the same crap and
> blame
> Democrats for the alleged "betrayal" of the masses, while seemingly
> ignoring
> the systemic factors, such as the distribution of political preferences
> among the population and the balance of power.
=================================
It is surprising. But I think a lot of it has to do with the ghettoization
of the left in small intellectual and activist circles after socialism
ceased to be a working-class movement. Socialism failed because capitalism
proved to be unexpectedly resilient, improving rather than destroying living
standards. In the process, it demoralized the great majority of left-wing
workers and intellectuals who were convinced they had discovered history's
laws of motion but who found themselves ignored by the masses on whom their
projections and successes depended.
There were some, however, who self-consciously "refused to become demoralized" and persuaded themselves that their difficulties were not primarily related to any disconnect between Marxist prophecy and material reality but to the ideological failings of their fellow leftists and the capture of the unions and socialist parties by treacherous officials who had sold out to capitalism.
Left unexplained, of course, was how so many tens of thousands of unions, parties, and other workers' organizations over several generations could be so easily betrayed by the "bureaucrats" without the masses rising up to resist them. Resolving this contradiction, however, leads to one of two conclusions: either that the masses are inherently incapable of assuming control over their own welfare, as conservative critics of socialism and democracy have always contended, or (my POV) are unwilling to take political leaps into the unknown until necessity forces them to do so.
Neither is an acceptable conclusion for those who want to remain active for personal as well as political reasons, and the "betrayal" theory is a convenient way of avoiding having to confront the contradiction. It is an "energizing myth" which allows some left groups and individuals to disregard the systemic constraints you mention above and to idealize the state of mass consciousness in order to fight the good fight as a moral imperative. The latter motivation is characteristic of students and intellectuals, who radicalize on the basis of what seems intellectually and morally coherent, rather than as a matter of physical or economic survival. It explains why you will always find a active pools of radicals in academic and professional venues in the interim between mass protest movements.
It should be obvious from the above that I don't share Mencken's unflattering view of the masses. I think, if anything, his "plain folks" are less prone to beguilement than intellectuals. If they don't act, it's not because they are so easily fooled. I've observed mostly the contrary: repeated disappointment and prolonged exposure to the risks and hazards of daily life makes many people wary about buying a pig in a poke, and I don't think that's always a bad thing.