In the small American town, with its six to seven hundred inhabitants, which has practically sprung into existence overnight, the inhabitants do not know each other, as they come from various parts of the country and frequently even from European states. There is no blood relationship. The families have no common history or historical memories with the town itself; and this lack of organic connection is in itself a conditioning basis of ochlocratic mentality which has a natural affinity toward everything artificial, atomistic, and impersonal.
Here, I think KL overlooks or misses the ways such “organic connection” and “blood relationship” can contribute to the ochlocratic (that is to say, democratic) culture we both deride. How, you might ask? Consider the way American blackfolk (and other minority blocs) tend to vote Democrat as a result of their perceived “organic connection”; and note how those who deviate from this pattern meet with trepidation, at best, and face derision as “Uncle Toms” and “self-haters” at worst. On my side of the pond, I notice a more specific type of “blood relationship” in play when votin’ time comes around, what with enough peeps saying something along the lines of: “I voted Labour ‘cause my Mum and Dad did too!”
If blood indeed carries more thickness than air, why couldn’t (indeed, why wouldn’t) a democraphilic politico turn such sloth voting to his advantage? The ties of blood often give birth to the desire for cohesion, continuity, legacy—such ample resources for an astute man of the people, no?