Do people have an overabundance of options or do they just not know how to choose? I've met a lot of people who are emotionally anemic - I've suffered emotional anemia - and the denial of fundamental unhappiness leads to greater lifetime unhappiness more than whatever is the mad dash and struggle it takes to find happiness.

I think about how people are sometimes encouraged to not trust themselves and I wonder if that is a greater force attributing to the degradation of culture rather than an overabundance of options. Even out of the top songs today, what percentage of them encourage the (presumably teenaged listener) to stop listening to other people and start listening to themselves?

Say there were only ten musicians to listen to, and only in their music only were you inspired in how to live. Seems like you'd have less options about who to actually grow up to be than if you had, say, 100.

I think advertising and the machine of consumer culture has something to do with this, though I hesitate to make a formal argument as I haven't done all the research and I'd rather not paint myself as anti-capitalist. But if culture is made by the choices taken by individuals based on what is in front of them, the incentives of who makes those choices attractive to the average person need to be checked. Largely I think what makes a choice attractive for less experienced people ("the youth") comes down to marketing/emotional appeal. Generally, what incentivizes a person in charge of making any of these choices more appealing than the other?

And to a point of the options kids are presented with being "bad" - banning books (or music, or video games) does not stop people from reading (listening/playing) them. You need to write better books.

@plebpoet have you done any reading on the "culture war" within academic poetry? It's pretty hilarious and frustrating actually.

I have a lot complicated thoughts and feelings about contemporary poetry, but this Wikipedia article filled in the gaps of the actual history of it for me to have some serious ideas.

My prediction of an optimistic end result is that poetry will be revitalized the same way dance has been revitalized - after modern dancers rejected the strict form of ballet, contemporary dancers were like hold on a minute! ballet taught us some good things too! but also we want freedom!

and thus American poetry will be revitalized :)

I like the point made about limiting our choice set.

That's why chess is such a beautiful game.

To answer your question, I would say neither liberal nor conservative culture can persist over time without the other. The former ends in chaos, the latter ends in tyranny and dogma. The right and the left need each other to keep balance.

thanks a whole lot, it is lovely to have my idea understood! as to your question, I think it's interesting. Speaking from my experience, I witnessed the inevitable degeneration, but I couldn't say how often it gets repeated. I would love to study that question even in people I know, because I used to know a lot of liberals. What's happened to them? I can't tell that it's the same thing that happened to me.

I do think liberal culture is at a crossroads. On one hand you have classic liberalism that I think we all support and on the other hand you have this modern leftism that I feel is filling the void of religion where people think they are saving the oppressed, the planet, etc but are just acting as mercenaries for state accretion of power because the end state which they seek (equal distribution of everything) can only be obtained by top down force.

And we know where that leads and it ain't very liberal.

Liberal cultures can evolve and adapt over time. The "structureless void" feeling might be a temporary challenge, not inevitable degeneration. A strong liberal democracy can address these concerns and find a balance between individual freedom and a sense of shared purpose.