No, they aren't, but that tends to be their campaign platform. Democrats arent exactly socially progressive either. Hillary Clinton and other prominent democrats are quick to shit upon the first amendment when it secures moderate voters. These kinds of issues dont run well with moderate voters, so they tend to get dropped by the wayside once push comes to shove. The average person is xenophobic, ruled by fear, and wants government assistance back whenever they have it taken away from them. Defining what a political party is is a virtual impossibility. Defining what their platform is is about the best you can do I think, while explaining that with our election system being the way it is, most politicians tend towards the moderate of their constituency, wherever that happens to be, so most democrats and republicans end up having some features of the opposing platform in order to get elected, to the point where many republicans and democrats are practically speaking indistinguishable. Depending on who you ask, that is either a huge problem with, or the brightest point of our electoral system.

It's why Bush and crew have ultimately lost the good will of the electorate. His talk was appealing to many in theory, but most people being moderate in nature, his extremist politics eventually offended the moderates that voted for him, as well as the ideological purists that voted for him as a second choice. 3 years ago I might have said otherwise, but ultimately, I think our moderate politics may be a good thing. I just think we need instant run offs, and a few other electoral fixes like proportionality and, most importantly, campaign finance reform with teeth. Really though, the ultimate resolution of this Bush crises has reinstilled in me a sense that, bizarre as it seems from moment to moment, the U.S. electoral system seems to work well enough in the long run.