America is not a progressive nation; we've been had. The recent democratic electoral victory does not attest to some profound ideological change in the American psyche. History, time and time again, has demonstrated the vulnerability of any political party that holds the White House for two terms. To borrow statistics from the admittedly over-the-top, yet immaculately researched Ann Coulter:

"In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even ... Ronald Reagan lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office."

Consider that in this election, President George W. Bush and the GOP lost just 28 seats in the House and six in the Senate, including losses to Independents. Should we take our friends on the left seriously, the worst president and political party in American history (authoritarian rulers, purveyors of lost liberties, warmongers and their ilk) still managed to perform at or better than the historical average. How, you might ask, was this at all possible?

It will be said of last week's midterm elections that, for once, all politics were indeed local. The Democratic Party, as a national institution, removed itself from the spotlight. In fact, it took the opposite approach of the Republican revolution. In 1994, a united GOP platform, the "Contract with America," propelled Republicans into office. Voters understood full well what they were supporting. Contemporary Democrats, lacking (as they have for the past 14 years) a cohesive platform and legislative agenda beyond "We're Not Them" or "Anybody but Bush," focused on their image. Democrats tucked away polarizing figures like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean in the weeks leading up to Election Day, unwanted reminders of the party's ideological leanings. Had they only "botched" the policy and kept John Kerry on the campaign trail!

The goal of the Democratic National Committee was simple-keep national democratic politics out of the races. Miraculously, it was quite successful in doing so. It created, in effect, a clear division between the individual candidates and the far-left constituency that controls the Democratic Party. This allowed the Democrats to sway middle-of-the-road voters, in traditionally red and toss-up states, who, as expected, were dissatisfied with Congress and frustrated by the two-term president. One needs only to look at the newest senators and congressmen-elect for affirmation. In Pennsylvania, voters turned from one pro-life social conservative, Rick Santorum, to another, Bob Casey. In Virginia, the Democratic senator-elect, Jim Webb, served previously as Ronald Reagan's secretary of the Navy. In North Carolina, Heath Shuler, described by the Los Angeles Times as "pro-business, anti-abortion, evangelical Christian and an avid hunter," is the newest Democratic representative in the House. To be sure, this list goes on. Even the New York Times conceded that the "Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the party." This is a generation of Zell Millers and Scoop Jacksons, not George McGoverns.

Still, we hear voices from the left claiming total ideological victory. In a recent Spectator news article, Stephen Cox, CC '09 and a member of the College Democrats' Activist Council, called the election results a "clear mandate for more progressive politics in America." Never, apparently, has it occurred to such dedicated progressive activists that to be Democratic does not make one progressive. Sadly, in certain respects, Cox is, in fact, correct. Having tempted moderate and toss-up states with appealing candidates, the DNC rode its regional success to a slim majority in both the House and Senate.

Slowly but surely, those familiar faces begin their cathartic crawl from their "undisclosed locations." However frightening the thought, the formal influence of Speaker Pelosi and Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel only mirrors the de facto power of that progressive cadre: Dean, Murtha, Boxer, Schumer, Hillary and Feinstein. The far left has usurped power from both Republicans and moderate Democrats alike. The votes that gave the Democratic Party its slim majority went to moderates, advocates of bipartisanship, and conservative Christians-not their progressive brethren.

Talk about a bait and switch.