No, but if we look at those who led the Coup against Roosevelt and study their political and class status,
they were very right-wing . A better term might have been "Fascist". Example, the admirer of Joseph
Goebbels (sp), and head of the CIA, Allen Dulles. Who were those in the CIA and US military who
brought Nazis like Dornberger, making him head of a huge corporation, and the Nazi spies, and
physicians/human experimenters to US military hospitals, in the late 1940s and 1950s and et cetera.
And all on taxpayers' hard earned money?
Also remember, please, the Wall Street plotters of 1933-34 were planning to replace Roosevelt with a
real dictator like Mussolini. Prescott Bush was one of them, the Duponts and the entire American
Liberty League which fought Roosevelt and the Democrats in every election in the 1930s until they
had to give up and disbanded around 1940.
Yes, there were two exceptions, two Democrats, both Wall Street affiliates who went along with mostly
these Republicans - Al Smith, former mayor of NYC and former governor of NY State, and John Davis,
Presidential Candidate in 1924 (?). Since we do not have multiple political parties as in other countries,
we can only think in terms of the two partie, plus Independents, which is not an organization.
So when an opposing party is made up of mostly certain demographic types that favor certain views and
vote a certain way, as say, Republican, it is not incorrect to so state, or is it? What other way could
they be described when discussing elections and politics?