oh, I'm sorry - I didn't make it clear that I was contemplating only the lowest echelon of the structure of the Democrat Party - those among the voting public who give their allegiance to the DNC. The "mudsill" if you would.
In that limited scope, the "glom" to which I referred is held together by "gimme entitlements". I'm not sure this can be considered an ideology so much as a pampered and short sighted selfishness, an attitude, a deeply ingrained willingness to surrender their self-control and political power to masters who should be servants, in return for the promise that those masters shall oppress the productive to squeeze out handouts for the idle.
I'm trying to figure out what is left of the mudsill if one removes the glom - who are the normal folk, the ones who do not reflexively hold their hands out in the universal "gimme" salute, who comprise the remainder of the mudsill, and what do they want, why do they ally their interests with those of the DNC?
I agree with your assessment of "politicos" - Most of them are there for personal gain to some extent (the terms are basically wealth, authority, and sex - this has ever been so); Some of them are there SOLELY for such gain; A very few -what used to be called Statesmen- are there to SERVE.
Politicos, or elected representatives if we wish to be polite, are what we could call the TOP echelon. I would hazard to guess that these hold the highest concentration of power per-capita of any of the echelons, but as an echelon they are not really the most powerful.
There are other echelons, and these are the more difficult to define, identify, and bring to heel. There are the various appointees and administrative hirelings (let us call this echelon "the entrenched bureaucracy), there are the power-brokers and lobbyists and PACs (let us call this echelon "the in crowd"), there is of course the media (let us call this echelon "the priesthood"), there are the minions of the National Education Association (I have no polite term with which to label this indoctrination machine), and there are the millions of employees of the various organs of the bloated State Services (let us call this echelon "the cogs").
There is, of course, significant overlap and migration between these echelons.
Curbing them will be a nightmare, if it is possible at all.
Thanks for clarifying that it's the voters that you're looking at; those who identify themselves as Democrats, yet are not really active in party politics or affairs. Kind of difficult to put a handle on, in truth.
I can only report what I observe from GOTV stuff I've been involved in. In my view it's a combination of things. And I'm not so sure that Democratic voters (or Republican voters for that matter) put the kind of intense, analytical microscope that you or I might put on the topic.
People tend to vote and support the same things that their parents and grandparents did. They also tend to vote what they believe their economic interests are. Or how they perceive them. There's also something of a "branding" mentality out there. Some people approach selecting a political party like they would select a brand of toothpaste. Some folks buy Crest and will never change, same for Colgate.
Again, I think you might be trying to put too fine a point on a decision that many people really don't put much thought into in the first place. Because when put to the harsh light of analytical scrutiny, the reason why people voted for X or Y party might not stand up in the face of logic.
For example, you could probably demonstrate that voting for the Democratic party has a detrimental impact on education. Yet Democrats are identified with their support of education. I on the other hand could probably demonstrate that voting for the Republican party has a detrimental impact on our gun rights. Yet Republicans are identified with their support of the Second Amendment.
There's a lot of mythbuilding and mythmaking that goes into politics. Perhaps you should be looking at how political parties/candidates/media create and reinforce myths to get more insight.