However, due to awful voter turn out, they represent much closer to 50% of the population that actively votes

I realize you may not want to hear this from me after my mistake earlier, but I believe that is not true. The "popular vote" is also counted in each Presidential election, even though it does not determine anything, and the last time a Republican won that was 2004. For the last 20 years, people's votes simply aren't being counted, bc they tend to aggregate together in cities and university towns, rather than spread far out across hundreds of miles of farmland, as e.g. people in Idaho do.

If you live in an area that leans >80% one way or another, then I don't blame people for not voting, bc their votes won't affect anything whatsoever. Especially young people, who have a disproportionate hardship to "just get out and vote" - having to take time off from work (retired people don't), college students may need to drive hundreds of miles to get "home" (which even if they do "often", still has to coincide with voting time, and comes at cost of sleep, studying, homework, etc.), people with kids have to struggle with daycare, and so on.

If we truly wanted more people to vote, then as a nation we would encourage that - e.g. give everyone a break from work, have appropriately equipped (e.g. staffed) recipient stations, and/or better yet allow mail-in voting. Making votes from some particular areas "count" while those from other areas not count, is very much a feature that was designed - as the very people that did it freely admit, and continue to push forward all the time.

Put another way, voting turnouts heavily correlate with age, aka the ability to vote with greater ease.

take voting seriously

I guarantee you - bc it's simply math - that if every single liberal Democrat were to get out and vote in the next election, thus representing the popular vote by 100% of the eligible people on that one side, it still would have extremely low impact on the actual end result. What would instead have a MASSIVE impact would be a bunch of liberals moving to a state like Texas, and rather than continue to vote from San Francisco or NYC, to influence the Electoral College system from that new location where it has a chance to actually flip it from red to blue, rather than reinforce the already blue still further.

Which has been happening lately - e.g. Austin - but also, I can't blame people especially women who due to the overall lack of healthcare and toxicity of surrounding neighbors may not wish to do that.

All that said, yes overall engagement will be necessary to combat the issues facing us all - e.g. people need to step up and run for office, or else we end up getting the jokers that we currently have. But it's nowhere near as simplistic as you make it sound, like all that would be needed would be to "vote". imho at least!:-)

Setting aside whether either of us "like" progressivism - we could get into that but atm I just don't want to get distracted by it - you might be throwing together the ideas of progress-IVE with progress-ING.

Conservatism can make "progress" too - e.g. abortions are now illegal in many parts of the USA, whereas they were not before, that is a step towards the goal that the conservative Right has had for many decades now. The difference, as I understand it anyway, is that Conservatism want to "return to traditional values", whereas Liberalism wants to make up new ones, like historically LGBTQ+ were considered bad but liberals want to expand human rights to include the right of each person to choose their own sexuality. Both move in a "direction", both move "forward", into the "future", but conservatives choose their direction as the past, seeing that as good, while liberals choose... as you say, something that came out of wishful thinking, aka a fantasy, that they want to make into reality.

Where I think it gets confusing - to me at least - is when politicians mix it up to claim one thing while doing the exact opposite (or worse, pick and choose a little bit from each side). Like Hillary Clinton despite being a Democrat, was extremely like a conservative (pro-war, pro-big business, having little to no social justice components in her platform iirc, etc.), and George W. Bush despite being a Republican was very much like a liberal (pro-socialism e.g. school funding, feeding the homeless & needy, etc.).

I am no political theorist, but it looks like there is a Theory, and that is where these terms fit, and then there is the Reality, where anything goes:-P.

But anyway, yes you are correct: most parts of the world seem to be advancing towards Authoritarianism. The rise of super-corporations and the effects of globalization and automation probably made that inevitable - after all if corporations are literally more powerful than governments, then the natural reaction of a government is going to want to become stronger, to keep up. But that is progress-ING, not progress-IVE. And Russia in particular had an extremely authoritarian regime before the Bolshevik revolution, so moving away from democracy and towards an autocratic government with Putin or his successor at the helm, is "conservative", returning to traditional valuations rather than engage in the fantasy play of trying to make a democracy viable.

Which btw is why a lot of people are fleeing Russia right now, to one of those fantasy playgrounds where citizens receive more from their governments. Whether liberalism has any long-term viability remains to be seen, but in the short-term it seems quite attractive, to many people.

Aren’t they all?

Abso-fucking-lutely. Or, at least the smart ones do. But, the crucial point is, not equally so. i.e., some give more back to the People than others, i.e. some are simply better at their jobs. Putin naively believed his advisors when they told him that they would win the Ukranian territory in "3 days", and now look at what it has cost the nation? Not only does it look increasingly likely that a Russian victory is not inevitable anymore, but as more time passes the cost compounds further and such a "victory" starts to look more and more like an abysmal defeat, in the sense that what was delivered was not as promised.

A ton of people want a "strong" leader, but the hard part is that the mere appearance of strength is not the same thing as the reality of it. Same with Trump in the USA, Boris Johnson in the UK, etc., so I'm not just arbitrarily picking on Putin - as you say it's a trend progressing across the world right now. Anyway, it's not that Putin's message is bad (strength, protection, stability, order), it's that he is an opportunist who merely claims that he would, but then has actually failed to, deliver upon those promises. And again, Trump failed to deliver upon his as well (mostly), and Boris Johnson too (I mean... Brexit happened, but are people satisfied with that outcome? Polls show that most say they are not, and if they could un-do it they would, but they cannot go back in time).

To my knowledge, there has never been a nation since the American and French Revolutions that has survived as a stable autocratic country for awhile - the cat was let out of the bag, and once people realized that they did not have to bow down as slaves before an overlord, they henceforth refused to. Then again, modern democracies are extremely vulnerable to disinformation campaigns spread by modern technology so... it is not like I am trying to say that one is superior or will win out over the other - in truth I have no idea what will happen:-P - I am just pointing out some components that I do see.

I am pretty sure that genocide is bad - even when the USA/Russia/China/Israel/Palestine/other country of choice supports it.