It is not clear if we deal with the people as the autonomous, self-determined source of the social agency.
Judith Butler proposed that the media has become an essential constitutive part of the people. — Number2018

And by what non-arbitrary standard is the state not a part of "the people"? The media is the media, the universities are the universities, and the state is the state. They all exist, a priori, for the people and by the people. But to consider "the people" self-determined is to reify the abstraction. There is no such thing as "the people." There is a complex system of individuals that can appear to function as a single unit in particular instances. These instances can largely be understood by accounting for incentives. As power becomes more accessible to more people we see sweeping changes in social behavior.

As power becomes decentralized we also see a shift in how power is used. As the power structure shifts to the left, so does the culture. Politics is not downstream of culture, it turns out. The will of the people changes depending on how much power the people have.

The truth would be more workable when there are more resources than people and the economy is dependent on human labor. — Athena

The economy does run on human labor, though. "Resources" are not measured by weight or volume. Resources are anything required to produce human value. Without human labor there are no resources. We can run out of raw materials (technically we can't, because the physical material does not just disappear), but the existence of raw materials is not the most important condition in the creation of human value.

There are groups of indigenous people who have done well with a different organization of people. They did not develop technology as we have, but they had good lives. — Athena

How do we measure "good" in "good lives"? Who decides what is good? There is a non-arbitrary way to measure value, and that is based on what people are willing to pay for.

If people want to live like the natives did, or adopt certain aspects of that culture that they think is good, they can do that. But the design of power structures is a completely different issue, unless you want people to live in small tribes.

I often prefer to just say my piece without defending my positions to the death. Especially since I hold many unpopular opinions. — fishfry

This is smart. People do not change their minds on things like this unless it is rooted in a more fundamental change of perspective.

But without arguing with your judgments of political events, I would suggest that the coordination behind them that you see is organic and not coming from any one entity.

that the primary mode of power is the totalizing domination of prevailing public opinion — Number2018

No, public opinion only needs to be dominated to the extent that the public have power. If not, public opinion is only important as so far as it prevents a revolt. This is the foundation of all official power, and if you lose this foundation the whole thing crumbles.

On the contrary, I think that we deal with the situation where 'progress' not just causes the intensification of power, but also constantly
reconfigures political and cultural fields, changes the function of institutions, creates new tensions and modes of power, and pushes
the society away from the state of equilibrium. — Number2018

There is no intensification of official power, just the exercising of existing power. But we have seen a gradual increase in unofficial power that is being exercised now as well.

You can look at Boris Johnson defence of Winston Churchill statues or the last Trump’s speech Mount Rushmore speech, he made his 'defence' of American heritage (and Mount Rushmore monuments) one of the main messages of his campaign. — Number2018

But where has society moved, as a whole? To the right or to the left? Eventually you get to a point in history where there would be a consensus. That doesn't mean that moving left isn't the right thing to do, but the power structures that shift at all will always shift left, short of a coup or revolution. Official power is given more and more to the people, and at that point the horse is out of the barn.

Just to clarify, culture moving to the left is a shift towards accommodating the lowest common denominator, while the power structure moving to the left is decentralizing official power (moving it more and more towards the lowest common denominator). With official power being in the minds of the masses, obviously there is the incentive for any institutions designed for disseminating information to guide those minds.

What is the good of their heirachy of power? — Athena

All the great achievements in human history depended on a hierarchy of power. It's called leadership and it's something humans need (and compete to become) on a primal level.

What do you mean by "Specific policies are irrelevant, the general constitution of the power structure is what progresses"? — Number2018

I mean that official power decentralizes and weakens. Any policies that contradict the ultimate value, being the lowest common denominator, are only temporary and will be corrected.

Generally, you are right. Yet, in the UK and the US there is no complete political consensus. — Number2018

There isn't? What about on issues of the past?

A while ago, Trump probably was not interested in culture or history. Nevertheless, after the Mount Rushmore speech, he can make his 'defence' of American heritage (and Mount Rushmore sculptures) the main message of his campaign. Therefore, the culture war may escalate. — Number2018

And then what? There is no winning option on the right. The culture will continue to change in the direction it always has. Like I said above, there are two options: progress, or slower progress.

Even the most conservative of politicians is forced to play catch-up to it. — NOS4A2

This has always been the case. Things either progress, or progress slowly; those are the options. Specific policies are irrelevant, the general constitution of the power structure is what progresses. Public opinion becomes more and more powerful, and more and more people try to get ahead of it for their own little piece of power. And there is no cost to the public that can be directly linked to having the wrong opinion, so there is no self-correction.

The US doesn't have a representative democracy because it works with plurality. People are becoming aware the political system doesn't work for their benefit and the minority that benefitted from it thinks there's a culture war going on. Lol. — Benkei

What people want and what works for them are two different things.

I think we’re past the culture wars. One side didn’t show up. Thus most institutions lean in a certain direction. — NOS4A2

The war is not for culture, though. It's for power. One side doesn't want it, they just want to stop the power grab. They're too concerned with culture, because "politics is downstream of culture." Well, that depends on the power structure.

So they did actually show up to the culture war, with their culture of conserving the system.

Black Lives Matter is one more chapter in the efforts of working people (this time primarily blacks) to get out from under the heavy hand of the bourgeois capitalists. — Bitter Crank

LOL BLM represents the working class. That's funny. The working class's number 1 priority has always been Trans Rights, so I guess it makes sense.

Can you explain to me what do you think is in the air these days that induces a bright, ambitious young woman to get herself into Harvard and then, after graduating and nailing a high status job at a big time accounting firm, posts a TikTok video that immediately renders her unsuitable for employment anywhere?
[...]
What is in the air? And why is it happening? The answer is that these ideas have been percolating by design in academia for decades; and this woman is a product of forces far beyond her understanding. Forces from the top, and not from the bottom. — fishfry

Kinda, sorta. It's from the top, but not as far up as you think. This trend has been happening literally forever. Democracy = progressivism. The only way to go is left, and left means breaking up any concentrations of (official) power.

Have kids been brainwashed? Yes. Did that all originate from some powerful, globalist cabal? No.

"Public opinion" is the well of power that has been drilled by the universities and the press, the rest is human nature. How do you insulate the once noble institutions from the corruption of power? You get rid of the middleman.