• Fugtig Fisk@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    But doesn’t this only prove that it was the man and not the ideology who got voted?

    • Skeezix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      And FDR was in a wheelchair no less. Imagine the current rabid right’s reaction if a democrat president was in a wheelchair?

      • GoTeamBoobies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Texas’s Governor Abbott is in a wheelchair, and I don’t see much criticism, but I also don’t know how many people know he is

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          5 months ago

          Abbot is a republican. If he were a democrat, the republicans would call him weak for being in a wheelchair

          • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            100% - the former guy said on national television that he likes “soldiers that don’t get captured” and people still voted for him. The Rs would have no problem with “I like governors who can walk”.

    • pearable@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      The US has, through concerted effort by the right wing, forgotten why FDR came into power. He was the heir of an extremely rich family. He managed to convince enough of the other oligarchs to avert going the way of the USSR. The US had revolutionary potential or the powerful would not have let this happen.

      The policies that resulted from FDR’s presidency had an enormous effect on the US’s populace. It completely changed what the average American expected from their government. The politics of the Democrats, and even the Republican, president’s that followed reflected the change that FDR’s policies wrought.

      It took 40 years of concerted media, intellectual, and religious capture for the right to regain anything resembling the political ascendancy they saw before the 1930s.

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      How can you say it was one and not the other? I’d say it was more likely a bit of both.

      • Fugtig Fisk@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I am just guessing that had it been due to exclusively the ideology of a democratic socialist, that there would have been more people to choose from.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          FDR was popular because the policies worked. If he’d crashed the economy again instead of beginning the recovery it doesn’t matter how much people liked him, he’d have lost reelection.

          • Fugtig Fisk@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            But was it him who came up with the policies or his political oeientation? were the policies socialistic democratic policies? If so, why didn’t they reelect an other democratic socialist if the policies based on that ideology worked, instead of voting for the same person again and again?