Baraka_Guru

From Social Liberalism:

Social liberalism [i.e. Modern liberalism in the United States] versus social democracy
The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual.

Social liberals value liberty, rights and freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the State does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.

Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism, and (especially in democratic socialist forms) typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the State itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process instead, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong scepticism for capitalism, which needs to be regulated (or at least "managed") for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.

Bear in mind that the American Democratic Party is not a purely social liberal party, as they have centrist and right-of-centre leanings. This is how they differ from their European counterparts.

You might be thinking of social democracy, which has its roots in socialism and Marxism. Think the NDP in Canada, the Labour Party in the U.K., and the Democratic Socialists of America in the U.S. But also bear in mind that some members of the Democrats are arguably social democrats (e.g. Dennis Kucinich). Most party members would consider themselves non-socialist, if not anti-socialist.

Again, calling a liberal (even with socially progressive ideals) a socialist is like calling a conservative a fascist. Don't fall into the trap of binary opposition. The world doesn't work that way.

I understand that, as a conservative, you disagree with some of the Democrats' social policies, but they aren't Marxists, and they aren't trying to start a revolution. They respect private property rights and other trappings of capitalism; no need to worry.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot