If I may add in my two cents on the current debate...
While some countries like the Nordic nations definitely aren't as large or diverse as say, the United States, there also exist other social democracies like Germany with an 80 million+ population and the third highest immigration rate (due to the German death rate being higher than its birth rate). It's the strongest economy in Europe and fourth strongest in the world, and produces 4 times the solar energy the US does despite its size (last one is a bonus point).
Regardless, I don't think any liberal with a realistic mindset would advocate full socialism, or at least full socialism in an instant. If such option is even possible in North America, it's a process that should gradually be completed and not thrown at the populace all at once. The first place where that process should start is not in our politics, but in our education. And to an extent, it's already happening IMO, with younger generations seeming more liberal and with a greater emphasis on the self and human rights. One should just analyze the current religious, gay marriage, abortion and police brutality debates to see evidence of that. I do think hippie_hunter has a point in that it's too liberal for it to be accepted at the moment but our history shows that even if it takes an eternity, progress can happen eventually.
However, I do believe in advocating for a more refined version of capitalism, which incorporates the best of capitalism with the best of socialism.
I think the classic "American Dream" model of attaining wealth has a place in society. While I think having a free competitive market and the ability to become an entrepreneur are both important and healthy, I also think it's important to acknowledge that not everyone can/should/will be an entrepreneur, and that workers' rights need to be protected. I think it's important that everyone has access to health care and education, as studies show society benefits in every way when everyone is at their full potential to contribute. If anything, the concept can be complementary to the market itself. Even here in Canada, though somewhat flawed in its application, it has still shown results.
The truth is that for every sincere hard-working person who "makes it", there's a few others who don't. And that's why I don't agree with the mostly-conservative notion that anyone struggling or in need of support is just some lazy bum.
I understand that for some, what I just described is another way of describing socialism. So take from that whatever you will.
Lastly, I'd like to thank everyone for how civilized this discussion has been. In my opinion, the first problem with the political ground today is not a particular ideology, but the media which sensationalizes them. We're taught to "pick a side", that it's all red vs. blue, conservative vs. liberal with nothing in between, that once you identified yourself as on the left or right people practically know your whole stance on all issues, and the biggest one of all...that it's always "they" who are the problem while your side are the white knights here to fix everything.
I think part of the reason socialism have a negate connotation is because of Stalin. That guy ruined everything for everyone.
This.
The Communism fear of the 20th century has greatly set back a lot of progress. Or more particularly, it's established this meme of left-wing politics that any deviation from today's right will turn us into the Soviet Union.
