You really lose me when you talk politics. I guess we'll all find out how "center-left" America is come Fall of 2010, and Americans have had nearly 2 years to contemplate the cost of our new Obama-nation.

As a Canadian, having lived in "liberal" California for a few years, I can say I was quite amazed at what qualifies as liberal, given that I was labelled a "socialist" or "communist" on quite a number of occasions for voicing a (Canadian) left-leaning viewpoint of matters.

As someone who leans "progressive," the ostensibly "progressive" Obama administration has done just about everything the opposite of what I would have wanted.

For example, the absolute last two things I wanted was a government that would force the lower middle class that tends to lack employment related benefits to purchase health insurance they already can't afford, while failing to regulate the financial industry that the Fed and Treasury is feeding trillions of dollars.

That's no "progressive" government– I don't care who helped elect this President.

I also agree about Media Matters etc–they're a superficial, two note orchesta. I can't even read that crap.

Out in four years. Just because.

"Because, voters vote for more of the same. For whatever reason, most people talk a good game but are either satisfied with the status quo or don't have the courage to do anything beyond voting just right or left of center."

I disagree. America is bankrupt and being restructured for the convenience of international banking interests.

Yves' back in the last presidential campaign ice-age when there was a large field of Democratic candidates, someone, somewhere did a telephone poll and discovered that the people being polled were strongly in favor of Kucinich's platform, so why wasn't that guy the Dem's pick?

Because, voters vote for more of the same. For whatever reason, most people talk a good game but are either satisfied with the status quo or don't have the courage to do anything beyond voting just right or left of center.

Regardless of the quality of the source, It seems to me the underlying issue of interest for you is the lack of relevance/objectivity that the mainstream media continues to develop. I left a comment in the past suggesting your talents aren't best served working this angle, but I was wrong. I forget how many people consume the mainstream media's regurgitated stories crafted to serve the source's political end without a moment's consideration.

All of that can be summarized as, keep up the good work!!

Now that is some clearly thought out, unbiased writing. Nothing wreaking of liberal doctrine here. Thanks yves.

But the country continues to be dominated by moderates, whose political leaning depends in large part on how questions are put. From what I can see, most people will support the objectives of the progressive platform, even as they oppose the costs. People will support protecting the environment–but they will not accept the loss of jobs to serve that end. People will support freely available healthcare–but they will not support radically higher taxes to that end (note that the poll asked whether people were content with their taxes, not whether they would be willing to pay substantially higher taxes to support further government programs.) The benefits as promised by progressives are appealing, but whether people are willing to pay the cost is another story entirely.

To one other major point, on the "youth" vote leaning left. Young people have been leaning left since the 1960's, and it has not moved the country's politics much, if at all. That's because–and this may come as a shock to the pundits–young people grow up. Young people become old people, and as they do, they tend to drift right. Paying taxes and having to deal with government regulations are a significant part of that. Social change programs that promise a utopian future are incredibly appealing to college students, who don't have to pay for or deal with any of it; when they are faced with the reality of what those social change programs cost, attitudes change. Young people have, and will continue, to support any program in a sufficiently attractive package, because, to put it bluntly, it's not their money paying for it.

The question of progressivism's future is a much larger one. I will simply make one point: that progressivism, at least the current version of it, is predicated in large part on having a wealthy society that can fund expansive social programs and that can compensate for an economy where efficiency is not the first priority. That assumption, of the bottomless wealth of society to fund progressive programs, is about to be called into question.

The system is termed democracy: do you have a better idea, Dikalos?