Yes very important distinction you highlight there. I didn't mention it here but it is something I tend to argue a lot about.
On the political left you have social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists and many other groups.
The American left is made up of social liberals while in Scandianvia social liberalism is rather small. The dominant leftist power is social democrats.
While both social democrats and social liberals want a more human capitalism, a key divider is what you describe: Social democrats believe in universal goods for the whole population while the social liberal mindset is to make capitalism work its "wonders" and let government move in to help those who fall through the cracks.
We see many debates here in Norway about how to deal with the poor between these two lines of thinking. The political centre in Norway is dominated by these social liberal inspired parties. They argue that more can be done for the poor with targeted programs. Their argument is that social democrats waste resources by spending government money on all people regardless of whater they are poor or not.
I used to buy into this line of thinking because it seem logical at frist glance. However, today I am a stance supporter of the concept of universal goods. From living in the US, I see clearly why it is so important.
The idea that rich and poor use the same health care system, same schools etc is a core principle in Norway. This idea that we all get together on a common arena regardless of class. We have a concept called "Dugnad" where everybody in the neighbourhood participate in clearing common grounds, painting, taking away weeks, trimming hedges and what not. We do it in schools, child care centers etc. Norway is rich enough to pay somebody to do this work.
Yet there is a belief in the value of people rich and poor working together physically in the areas they live. It gets people to know each other and it also means we can all share a common experience and reference point.
I felt when living in the US that there is not much of that. People live in very segregated bubbles. They end up stopping to care about those living outside their own bubble, whether that bubble is defined by income, race or something else.
Universal programs have the benefit that the most resourceful and powerful people in society will be advocates for improvement of those programs. When public schools or public education fails, the people with influence, money and power will be in the media or elsewhere pushing to have the system improved, because they have skin in the game.
When public programs are just for the poor, then the only real advocates becomes the least resourceful among us. Those who have too many problems to deal with already than to spend a lot of time pushing for reforms or improvements.
It is why we rarely allow donations in Norway. You can generally not donate to your local school. Otherwise those in affluent neighborhoods could create a better school, while the pressure to improve the general school system would evaporate.
If schools don't have all the resources they need, we need those rich people to be part of the group that advocate for those improvement rather than skip the line and donate to their local school. Then they know that unless they pay more taxes, their kids may not be able to benefit from better schools or health care.
I have seen many Americans come here to Norway starting out as deeply skeptical to government and completely change their attitude. You often have to live in a system to really grasp what is possible. The cynicism seems to run so deep in the US. It is ironic given what optimists Americans tend to be. But when it comes to government there is no optimism to trace. Or at least not among conservatives.
