Do you agree with the statement that Democrats fight for the little guy and are at their best when they do that?

The way the constitutions work is very different. Most of all the head of state in almost all parliamentary systems is politically neutral - in ones with a constitutional monarch (the UK, Canada, Netherlands, etc) - they are so neutral they're not even elected and not really meant to ever express their personal political views in public as a result.

The head of state (president, monarch) is separate from the head of government (prime minister, chancellor, etc), with all the government usually made up of politicians in the parliament, and the governemt is directly accountable to it and can much more easily be changed than in the US, so something politically dicey is often harder to pass.

Vetoing a legislation therefore becomes a nuclear option that shouldn't ever be needed if everyone else (MPs etc) even occasionally do their job.

In monarchies, the monarch vetoing a bill without being instructed by the government would probably see the abolition of the monarchy since it violates political neutrality.

In the UK the last time a monarch vetoed a bill was in about 1710, and even then was only because the government changed its mind and asked for it.

Generally, that has seemed to be the case. The current radical right is gaslighting the country that they are the party of the working class. But, if you look at their agenda it is heavily favoring the rich and powerful. In taxes, it is really reverse Robin Hood.

Dems have never passed a bill for the average person unless there was profit for them