Not strictly necessary. FDR was no worker.
Then you’re not looking for wealth redistribution.
I’d be satisfied with a new New Deal/Great Society/Scandinavian-style social democracy, with the tax burden distributed progressively. If that does not make the rich significantly poorer, at least it will stop them from getting richer and richer at everyone else’s expense like they have been doing since the 1970s.
The New Deal and Great Society exist and nothing worthwhile about those programs has been repealed(stupid aspects like the raisin cartel and the Ex-im bank have been , of course). I’m not sure how much more progressive you can make the tax system. The wealthy already have a marginal tax rate over 50% in high tax states. And that’s real stuff, not the BS 70% tax rate that was effectively a 10% tax rate.
He was savvy enough to realize that American aristocrats could be dragged from their mansions and killed, just like the ones in Europe. Today’s American aristocrats are far more arrogant and quite confident that safety and luxury are only a plane flight away, no matter what happens here.
And yet he felt no need to arm himself, invalid though he was. No photo of his wheelchair shows a holster mounted to it, for instance. How in the world was he going to defend himself and Eleanor without a gun?
It would be interesting to see a non-imagined historical source that such a scenario was ever in his thoughts. IOW, WTF?
Eleanor carried a revolver.
http://www.americangunculturereport.com/roosevelt.html
Now you please, please, be sure to have a good day. For the children.
Good responses, even if I may not agree with some. I will add that the “brand” of the Democratic party has much brighter future than that of the GOP. I’ll leave it at that.
Hillary Clinton and her husband are worth over $100,000,000. Hillary earns over $200,000 for half-hour speeches, which is several times more than most Americans earn in a year. Bill earns even more than that. They live in a million dollar mansion in an enclave of million dollar mansions. They sent their daughter to a super-expensive private school while fighting against voucher programs that would have allowed poor children to escape failing public schools. They hang out with millionaires and occasionally take a break to hang out with billionaires. Hillary once opposed the corn ethanol mandate, which hurts the poor, but supports it now that she’s received large donations from agribusiness. She’s planning to raise more money than any other candidate in history.
Obviously Hillary is the perfect candidate for making people perceive the Democrats as being pro working and middle class.
How did the Roosevelts and the Kennedys and the Rockefellers, with vastly greater fortunes, manage it, then?
You get an image of being pro working and middle class by being pro working and middle class. Simply *being *working and middle class makes you Sarah Palin.
Your own cite says nothing about how if was because"the rich could be dragged from their mansions and killed", and of course nothing about FDR, the subject of your claim, had any such thoughts. Interestingly, it only says she got a permit and gun after FDR’s death, to protect herself from attack by Republican operatives and the Klan. In short, fail.
Just can’t keep your mind off them, can you?
Careful. You’re getting angry. If you want to continue this, open a Pit thread and we can discuss you there.
You made something up, you got called on it. GD works that way. Learn from the experience.
I exprssed an opinion about FDR. You took it and mashed it up with your obsesion about gun control in a truly senseless way. Now, you are declaring victory. I am not sure it is possible to continue this in any way that makes sense as you do not make sense. One thing the Democratic Party definitely has working against it is you.
Try to have a good day, though. We know how angry you get and where that can lead.
P.S. This not GD.
By dealing with the systems issues that result in the hollowing out of the middle class, rather than useless finger pointing.
The problem is not that some people are greedy: almost all people are greedy. Those who can take advantage of the rules to benefit themselves and their children and willfully refuse to do, letting others do so instead, so are reasonably expected to be few and far between. How many would turn down power if it is just put there for their taking? “No, really, let the other guy whose opinions and thoughts are 180 to mine have it! I’m fine!”
They are not evil and pointing fingers at them only distracts from figuring out what the exact problems in the system are and how to fix them. Mind you, I am not sure what those fixes are myself. I’m a doctor Jim, not an economic wonk! 
FDR was swept to power amid a Great Depression and possibly saved our democracy(as well as the hides of the rich). The rich basically gave up a teeny portion of their income in exchange for calm.
JFK was a national security candidate, not a “soak the rich” candidate. JFK never claimed to be a fighter for the middle class, although he did talk a lot about the economy in general terms. He promised to get us out of the Eisenhower recession and solve the massive unemployment problem(6% unemployment!)
Neither candidate redistributed wealth in any meaningful sense. If you want a few government programs and to raise taxes on the rich by a few percentage points(while being sure to shield the political class and their friends from those slightly higher taxes), then Democrats will continue to provide those policies. But if you want wealth redistribution and an end to the policies that stack the deck for the wealthy and politically connected, then you can’t keep electing the very people who benefit from that system. Hillary Clinton is not going to end the “cashing out” syndrome among elected officials. That’s how she made her fortune. And when she says that taxes on “people like her” need to rise, she means people LIKE her, not her herself, or Harry Reid, or any of her campaign donors.
If you are going to start singing us Woody Guthrie songs, be advised they are all in the People’s Key of C.
Bumping to add this article to the mix.
The point is valid and goes both ways: national branding has to be an inclusive Big tent message; and a local election in a Red State cannot be won by trying to reject the national brand. Progressive economic principles articulately expressed and applied to local issues should be able to unite an otherwise pretty motley crew.
There’s some appeal in a progressive message even in red states, and there’s some appeal to a very conservative message even in blue states. It’s about how you market it, what issues you choose to emphasize, and avoiding provocative stands on issues that people in very blue or red states feel strongly about.
The Democrats used to have an inherent advantage in red states compared to Republicans in blue states because the national party avoided provocations on issues like guns, whereas Republicans were doing all kinds of things to make themselves offensive to blue staters. That advantage now seems to be gone.
Oh, it does, does it? Well, that certainly settles that, then. Nothing but blue skies and sunshine ahead for the Republican Party!