Would FDR be a Republican today?

[Osiris-ODS]

Interesting note on this topic, FDR actually ran as a "small-government liberal," and made campaign promises to slash bureaucracy and cut spending. Instead, he ushered in the most collectivist big-government legislation in our nation's history, including the following (and resulting in a host of outspoken critics ranging from the far left to the right)

The Revenue Act of 1935 (increasing income tax to a max tax bracket of 75%, and adding "wealth tax" on inheritance)

The Revenue Act of 1936 (adding new tax on "undistributed corporate profits," thereby resulting in double taxation via personal income tax once profits were distributed)

The Revenue Act of 1937 (revising tax code and tax regulations to eliminate avoidance of the income tax expansions in the Revenue Acts of 1935 and 1936)

The Revenue Act of 1942 (adding the Victory Tax--"the broadest and most progressive tax in American history," which included an additional 5% tax on all individual incomes over $624--as well as increasing the maximum personal income tax bracket to 88%, and ushering in the current era of paycheck withholdings by requiring employers to withhold money from employees' paychecks for the stated purpose of creating a regular flow of revenue into the Treasury).

 

[LuckyDuck]

FDR would be soundly rejected by the so-called Democrat party of today. The reason.....he was a "Nationalist."
JFK would also be soundly rejected. He too was a "Nationalist" and, in a speech, he stated..."Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." The left of today believes in....gimmee, gimmee, gimmee! And.....No borders....No nations....No freedom....No freedom of speech.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have nothing to fear except..................itself.

1. Covid 19

2. Global warming

3. The Orange Hitler

4. Capitalism

5. The GOP that is the Taliban

6. Christian right

7. Pollution

8. People not wearing masks

9. The police

10. Systemic racism...........against blacks only that is, but I think that is only common sense.

FDR: Commie then, Commie now

 

[Norman]

Good post, he would be uber far right today.

 

[2aguy]

We have nothing to fear except..................itself.

1. Covid 19

2. Global warming

3. The Orange Hitler

4. Capitalism

5. The GOP that is the Taliban

6. Christian right

7. Pollution

8. People not wearing masks

9. The police

10. Systemic racism...........against blacks only that is, but I think that is only common sense.

No.....roosevelt was a socialist. He was also a racist and anti-semite...he is you classic democrat party member.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

FDR would be soundly rejected by the so-called Democrat party of today. The reason.....he was a "Nationalist."
JFK would also be soundly rejected. He too was a "Nationalist" and, in a speech, he stated..."Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." The left of today believes in....gimmee, gimmee, gimmee! And.....No borders....No nations....No freedom....No freedom of speech.

Contrary to the analytically-shallow description of FDR found in most school textbooks, the actual historical facts involving FDR's presidency make it very clear that he was not in fact a "nationalist" in the way that you're likely using that term (i.e., as it's defined in political philosophy, prioritizing the advancement, traditions and prosperity of a given country and its citizens, as opposed to advancement of international homogeneity. That term has been co-opted by Democrats in recent years as a dirty word synonymous with "white supremacist," but I realize that's not the way you meant it).

 

[Unkotare]

Well the people of that time period seemed to like FDR. The people elected him four times and might still be voting for FDR. America's most noted historians named FDR as America's greatest president.

People voted for Saddam Hussein over and over too.

 

[justinacolmena]

Interesting note on this topic, FDR actually ran as a "small-government liberal," and made campaign promises to slash bureaucracy and cut spending. Instead, he ushered in the most collectivist big-government legislation in our nation's history, including the following (and resulting in a host of outspoken critics ranging from the far left to the right)

That is indeed the same pernicious behavior of “small-town Republicans” (RINOs) that we have come to expect from the likes of Townhall.

Townhall

Townhall is the leading source for conservative news, political cartoons, breaking stories, election analysis and commentary on politics and the media culture. An information hub for conservatives, republicans, libertarians, and liberty-loving Americans.

www.townhall.com

When politicians talk about “small government” they are never really talking about downsizing government or laying off government employees. “Small government” is a code phrase to justify a heavy property tax burden for “local” schools, small-town local libraries, city and county police departments and other “small” local or municipal government jurisdictions.

Small class sizes in grade school, government-directed local community-building, traffic enforcement to collect fines for revenue, there's a local health district for building codes, business permits, vital statistics, vaccinations and mental health enforcement, etc., etc. It's a strong effort to build up confidence in local government in addition to state government and federal government, because it's the small government that knows us best, and has the most conrol over our everyday lives. They're politicians and government employees, including law enforcement, and small government is good, but no government is too much for them or us.

Ask them if we need more government, if we need to pay more taxes, and more people with more power over us to make and enforce decisions for us individuals on behalf of the bipartisan community of healthy living and climate change mitigation they envision.

 

[Englewood]

Well the people of that time period seemed to like FDR. The people elected him four times and might still be voting for FDR. America's most noted historians named FDR as America's greatest president.

People voted for Saddam Hussein over and over too.

Well it seems Trump will be impeached over and over. I hope you know the difference between being elected and being impeached. If you don't, someone will explain it to you.

 

[Unkotare]

Well the people of that time period seemed to like FDR. The people elected him four times and might still be voting for FDR. America's most noted historians named FDR as America's greatest president.

People voted for Saddam Hussein over and over too.

Well it seems Trump will be impeached over and over. I hope you know the difference between being elected and being impeached. If you don't, someone will explain it to you.

Was there any point to that stupid post at all?

 

[surada]

FDR would be soundly rejected by the so-called Democrat party of today. The reason.....he was a "Nationalist."
JFK would also be soundly rejected. He too was a "Nationalist" and, in a speech, he stated..."Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." The left of today believes in....gimmee, gimmee, gimmee! And.....No borders....No nations....No freedom....No freedom of speech.

No.. Check the definition of Nationalist.. and look at the Nationalists of the 20th century. Hitler and Mussolini were Nationalists and both were embraced by the hard right. Kennedy was a patriot so was FDR... BIG difference.

 

[surada]

Well the people of that time period seemed to like FDR. The people elected him four times and might still be voting for FDR. America's most noted historians named FDR as America's greatest president.

People voted for Saddam Hussein over and over too.

Uh.. NO.

It was a presidential referendum in Iraq in October 1995. It was the first direct presidential election under the rule of Saddam Hussein, who had seized power through the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) in 1979.

It took the form of a referendum with no other candidates .. and it said, "Do you approve of Saddam Hussein?"

 

[Unkotare]

...

It took the form of a referendum with no other candidates .. and it said, "Do you approve of Saddam Hussein?"

And what was the outcome?

 

[surada]

FDR would be soundly rejected by the so-called Democrat party of today. The reason.....he was a "Nationalist."
JFK would also be soundly rejected. He too was a "Nationalist" and, in a speech, he stated..."Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." The left of today believes in....gimmee, gimmee, gimmee! And.....No borders....No nations....No freedom....No freedom of speech.

Contrary to the analytically-shallow description of FDR found in most school textbooks, the actual historical facts involving FDR's presidency make it very clear that he was not in fact a "nationalist" in the way that you're likely using that term (i.e., as it's defined in political philosophy, prioritizing the advancement, traditions and prosperity of a given country and its citizens, as opposed to advancement of international homogeneity. That term has been co-opted by Democrats in recent years as a dirty word synonymous with "white supremacist," but I realize that's not the way you meant it).

Hitler and Mussolini were both Nationalists and both were embraced by far right conservatives and Industrialists.

 

[surada]

...

It took the form of a referendum with no other candidates .. and it said, "Do you approve of Saddam Hussein?"

And what was the outcome?

There was only that one "election" in 1995 and of course Saddam won.

 

[Unkotare]

...

It took the form of a referendum with no other candidates .. and it said, "Do you approve of Saddam Hussein?"

And what was the outcome?

There was only that one "election" in 1995 and of course Saddam won.

Was it close?

 

[Unkotare]

The world of 100% election victories

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was elected to the rubber-stamp parliament with 100% votes on Monday. He's not the only leader to win an election with ease.

www.bbc.com

 

[Unkotare]

Saddam re-elected president by 100% of voters

IRAQ: Saddam Hussein won a perfect 100 per cent of votes in a referendum for a new term as president of Iraq, according to official…

www.irishtimes.com

 

[surada]

...

It took the form of a referendum with no other candidates .. and it said, "Do you approve of Saddam Hussein?"

And what was the outcome?

There was only that one "election" in 1995 and of course Saddam won.

Was it close?

Do you know what a referendum is?

 

[Unkotare]

Saddam Hussein | Biography, History, Death, Sons, & Facts

Saddam Hussein, the controversial Iraqi leader known for his iron-fisted rule and involvement in regional conflicts, left a lasting impact on Middle Eastern history with his reign marked by oppression and international tensions.

www.britannica.com