When people say “socialism” in the U.S., they often mean anything with government intervention, but that’s not technically correct. True socialism involves the collective or state ownership of the means of production, not just taxing the wealthy or providing social services. What the New Deal and later programs represent is socially democratic reforms. So unless we’re talking about fully replacing capitalism, it’s more accurate to frame this as a debate about how far we’ve gone with social democracy, not socialism. But that’s just a matter of semantics.
Now, onto your point, yes, social spending has increased significantly since the New Deal. There’s no denying that programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have grown into pillars of the federal budget. But just looking at the dollar amounts doesn’t tell the full story. The more important question is how that money is spent and who it benefits.
In European countries with strong social democracies, programs are universal, things like healthcare, childcare, education, and unemployment benefits are available to everyone. That universality builds solidarity, reduces stigma, and makes the programs politically resilient. In the U.S., by contrast, most programs are means-tested, you only qualify if you’re below a certain income level. This approach often stigmatizes recipients, creates bureaucratic barriers, and weakens public support, because people don’t feel personally invested in programs they can’t access.
So even though America spends more on social programs now than in the 1930s, that doesn’t mean we’ve become more progressive in structure or intent. If anything, we’ve shifted away from universal social protections and toward a patchwork system that reinforces division and political vulnerability. The New Deal might not have been the high point in spending, but it arguably was the high point in universal vision, something we’ve steadily backed away from since.
