You and Ed will likely not agree, but this is my take on it.

As a rule of thumb, the normally pushes for increased regulation at the federal level and in most non-US cases, increased state ownership of large businesses.  On any individual case, you can find an area where this works, i.e. the FDIC, FAA, or (for the most part) OSHA.  However, I think there is a macro-economic balance between state control and private enterprise that is important.  I've seen the results of increased state control in the business arena from my travels to Venezuela, Mexico, China, several Middle East states, India (although it's changing), and others.  Without exception, I think those states cross the line into inhibiting growth, opportunity, and innovation via state policy.

And the American left has historically been funded by the unions (again, that is diminishing).  Although I've nothing against unions, there is a balance to be struck between union power and business owner power.  Countries who have stayed for extended periods of time under labor dominated governments have generally had lower growth rates.  This limits opportunity, increases dependence, etc.

We all know that the opposite, extended corporate dominance, leads to the opposite result:  high growth rates, but stagnant middle class wages, and all that we see happening today under the Bush administration.

My larger point is that I think the middle wing of the Democratic party, like Gore and certainly Bill Clinton, actually get this idea.  Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, too.  The middle path is the way to go, and I think I would support Gore were he to run again.  I voted for him in 2000. 

I'm curious to see if your opinon differs.  I'd like to not come across as a "wingnut" in putting forth this opinion.