Don't settle for reading revisionist history alone - search out the archives, the newspapers from the time to get the full flavor of the despair this nation was in when FDR took office - and see how he single-handedly turned that around, literally saving the nation from a far worse fate. Monday morning quarterbacking repeating dogma does not tend to lead to positive brain growth...
In your own words you have simply set Democrat election strategy into past tense rather than present.
Fair enough because they've been using those points ever since FDR set them in place: that's how we got Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. Every one capitalized on fears of "the Right" getting us into a war or a depression or just making things 'worse' and that's what you are hearing today from the whole lot of them.
FDR had several things going for him that hadn't existed before:
The press loved him and he used the office to control every bit of information the public saw. (How about that wheelchair that no one knew about until it was impossible to hid any longer?) The close ties are still there and we discuss daily their effects on elections and the WOT.
When you advise us to 'search out the archives & newspapers of the time' you are simply adhering to the propaganda set forth at that time. "Revisionism" in this case is fully justified although it is also liable to be distorted by those doing it. (Note also that there were books and reports written during and after the time that spoke against much of our WW2 policies but they were dismissed then as today by popular consensus (didn't "poll well" at the time.)
His socialist programs and government expansion were justified as emergency actions to 'save' us from depression, war, or defeat - and they are still with us!
Like most of that generation of elitists he didn't just accept the USSR as the lesser of two evils (I'd have armed them also) but embraced everything about their system. Same for China where we short changed an ally and lied about 'Agrarian Reform'.
Pre war disputes over Communism versus Fascism had grown along with the rise in academic interest in Marxism following the first WW and were made worse because at that time Germans were the second ranked minority in the USA. (Note: American Jewry also chose Stalin as the lesser of two evils at that time and they still vote as though FDR was going to save us all.)
Add to that the quite different democrat party that FDR built around the same group-think the dems still rely on: Black? Vote dem. Poor? Vote dem. Urban? Vote dem.
Finally, your "like Wilson in WW1" and "unlike Hoover" points are smoke and mirrors.
Much of what Roosevelt did early on was on the table before his ascension just as 'redeploy from Iraq' will remain on the table until Hillary is crowned using the time honored machine.
Any US president (neither Lindberg nor Joe Kennedy were running for office IIRC) would have done the same or similar regarding UK prior to 12/41 and we were on course to war with Japan in any and all events.
Questions for you:
What if a different president had NOT locked up thousands of American citizens for the entire duration because of their race?
What if a different president had NOT engendered a virtual cold war with France or had NOT stood back while an allied Chinese government was run over by a Communist movement we had allowed to prosper?
What if we'd supported the Greek and Yugoslav partisans who had been on our side during the war?
What if a different president had NOT firebombed Dresden?
Whatever you may say to rationalize your rating system, I hold FDR responsible for VERY much of what has come since his coronation. By the way, downplaying his cousin because he didn't have the benefit of a war is bogus as well, there is no doubt whatever as to how TR would have dealt with such events.
FDR was either a commie or a fellow traveler and reputedly not the brightest bulb. Not good to see some one who considers himself "conservative" cozying up to the old liar.