Yeah.. sorry about that it was rather vague.
Fundementally yes that's a pretty fair description of the landscape, but if you look at the nuances of political dymanics I think that the Kantian model of cosmoplitan federation being adopted by the EU as a foundation for future inter-statal co-operation/integration (in terms of trade, defence and law etc) is, arguably, begining adopted worldwide therefore I would argue that "large" government is a thing that the US is going to have to look forward to?
Agreed...liberal politics has pushed the US into socialism "light" since FDR...and it is getting heavier all the time...but just because that is the way things are going doesn't make it anything other than socialism.
The US is a very young country and has been moving inexorably away from its original ideals for a number of generations now; ultimately I think that the US is heading down the same route as Europe (for better or worse).
Definitely for the worse. I have tried and can't think of a single thing that I can do anymore that doesn't involve some sort of government interference either local, state or federal without going into the most mundane aspect of my life. The trouble with that is that government is very seldom the answer to problems and is damned near always the cause...the more involvement, the more problems that they simply can not fix.
For example successful people aspire to do greater things not only for themselves but for those around them (Bill Gates) - they appreciate the place they came from but want to elevate those that are in it... out of it.
The cases where government assistance in the form of welfare has lifted anyone out of poverty are as scarce as chicken teeth...the cases where welfare has produced angry people, stuck in poverty and generational dependence on government handouts are legion....and the taxes that must be collected to hand out to those in need invariably end up hurting exactly those people. When you tax the rich in an effort to redistribute wealth to the poor, the rich who are the ones who provide the means of production don't pay those taxes out of their pockets, they increase the cost of the goods that they produce, which inevetably increases the cost of living for the very people who can afford it the least.
The only government program that I can think of that has been a resounding success in moving people up the social ladder has been the GI education bill. It is a program where by spending time in the military, you are afforded assistance with furthering your education...service is required in order to qualify so one not only serves one's country but is given the opportunity and motivation to develop a good work ethic...then when you begin using the benefit, you are required to succeed..that is if you drop classes they want their money back...if you drop out of school, they want their money back, at least for the semester in which you dropped out...if you flunk out then the benefit stops.
Requiring service of some sort in exchange for government assistance is good for both government and the people who receive the assistance. When you simply hand money or goods over, people develop an entitlement attitude and almost always come to hate the hand that feeds them.
In other words that have found a route out of the limitations of their backgrounds and feel that have a moral duty (if that's the right phrase) to assist others to do the same. The success for the individual in determining how, where, when to act is exhilarating until something goes wrong and when one is in a state of adversity and you do not have the well of resources to fall back on then the sense of "community" is missing.
You should read a book called
Outliers, by Malcom Gladwell. It takes an in depth look at the people who have risen to the top of their chosen professions...and rarely did they "find" a way out of their circumstances. In most instances, their route to the top was thrust upon them without the knowledge of themselves or the people who did the thrusting. In most cases, it wasn't money, or someone pushing them to succeed that resulted in an individual being propelled to the top of his field, it is unique circumstances and an internal "thing" that no amount of assistance will ever provide.
The EU is a superstate example of that ideal. Europe has been at war since the time of the Romans and post WWII the direction of travel has been to try and eliminate that threat, therefore, how do you do this? You integrate countries as in Kants model thus the "self" is transformed to the "community" as in times of adversity the "self" is exposed whilst the "community" is protected.
And now europe is in the beginnings of a war with an enemy that lives within...an enemy who wants us all dead and who is himself protected by the very institution you though would make you safe...and he kills indiscriminately. So what option do you have other than to either become what he wishes you to be, or give up the illusion that government can make you safe?
Turning to your thoughts on "big government" IMHO I think the US is already on that path and is only going to go further down it. One of the centre pieces of Trump's campaign policies was to dismantle ACA which so far has not happened, I have the feeling that within the next generation Medicare/Aid/ACA will all be rationaliased into one national "socialised" medical scheme for the benefit of the "community" perhaps along the lines of the European models? You arleady have a model which is FEMA designed to respond when a state declares an emergency the "self" i.e. the State becomes exposed therefore the "community" responds.
No doubt we will...because a tipping point has been reached where there are more voting people exempt from the taxes that are required for such services than there are people who pay for it. That road, however, is a dead end and no one is sure, or even cares in so far as I can see exactly how long that road is and what is at the end.
I think for better or worse the "community" is going to replace the "self" as we have seen during the financial collapse countries needed assistance from the community in order to be socially viable. As I said I don't disagree with what you are saying I just think that to rationalise in those terms is not the point anymore.
If one can't put a name to a threat, then one can't begin to address it. Political correctness is demonstrating that truth in spades everywhere it exists.