Very true. It wasn't FDR's ideology or economics that carried the day, but his confidence and personal skills. Like Ronald Reagan, Roosevelt convinced people that the future would be better. Hoover was more like Carter or GWB. Reagan's interpretation of FDR was interesting: he rejected many of the claims and goals of the New Deal, but respected and imitated Roosevelt's persona, and aimed his appeal at the groups that FDR had won over, rather than simply to convinced Republicans or Conservatives alone.
FDR did help to bring in "happy face" or "feel good" government which uses all the techniques of advertising, public relations, and management to keep the public contented and obedient. But such a development was implicit in the system long before, as Tocqueville forsaw and Two Adamses and Van Buren learned at their own cost. When people are getting fired and losing their businesses, no politician can afford to look like the guy who gave you your pink slip, called in your loan, or auctioned off your farm.
Context matters a lot, too. Roosevelt wasn't seen in the context of Washington or Reagan, but against the background of Hitler and Stalin, the lackluster, unappealing Hoover and Mellon and the uninspiring leaders of the other interwar democracies. Nobody will ever take FDR for a deep thinker or cultural hero, but in the thirties and forties, he had to be built up into one to serve as an alternative to Hitler and Stalin on the world scene.
I'm curious about Taft and income tax, though. How responsible was he for it?
He could have dressed like a clown and still taken the election.
For safety, I took your 16th amendment question over here