What is a Social Democrat?

[DevotedDemocrat]

What is a Social Democrat exactly?

What separates a Social Democrat from a Socialist, a Liberal, and a Conservative?

 Have we had any Presidents in the US who could be termed Social Democrats?

[ElectionsGuy]

A social democrat is one who wants to do moderate reforms on the system by various methods. Such as welfare reform and allowing the government to do more.

How does it differ? Well a socialist is basically a farther left version of a social democrat, and a liberal (in America) is a more moderate version of a social democrat. And a conservative, obviously, would be the opposite. Liberals, Social Democrats, and Socialists, are all similar in at least some ways of ideology and doing things, but they have different goals on how far they want to go with them.

From left to right:

Socialist --> Social Democrat --> Liberal --> Conservative.

Here are some links to those ideologies on Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

And to answer your last question, we probably don't have any presidents who we could call "social democrats", but we could claim Obama, LBJ, FDR, and Wilson could be social democrats in some ways, but realistically the farthest left a president a probably has been is a liberal. Most of our presidents throughout history would be called moderate and conservative in today's terms.

[Peter the Lefty]

What is a Social Democrat exactly?

What separates a Social Democrat from a Socialist, a Liberal, and a Conservative?

 Have we had any Presidents in the US who could be termed Social Democrats?

Oh boy.  Antonio V's got a great paper on this up here somewhere. 
In short, a social democrat is (supposed to be) a socialist who believes in gradual reforms in order to achieve socialism rather than outright nationalization.  These reforms often include benefits such as universal, government-run health care, child care, equitable education, low-cost public housing, social welfare programs, public pensions, and affordable public transportation networks, as well as support for labor unions, high wages, and the lowest possible pay discrepancies between employer and employees.  Through this, according to the original theories, businesses will become more accountable to their workers, and over time, it will reach the point where workers run their businesses.  This point is loosely applied, though.  Often in modern times, environmental concerns are incorporated, as well as feminism, racial equality, gay rights and peace.

The best and most quintessential examples of social democrats I can think of are Willy Brandt, Olof Palme, Michel Rocard, Johanna Siggodatur, Tommy Douglas, and Gough Whitlam.

Technically, a social democrat is a reformist socialist.  We're distinguished from traditional socialists by our lack of desire for nationalization, and our belief that private enterprise does not require abolishment in order for a socialism to come about.  By Liberal, it depends on which kind you mean.  A European-style classical liberal believes in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, opposes government intervention in the economy in principle, favors low tax rates, supports low government expenditure, and opposes most barriers to free trade.  Obviously, social democrats (and by which I mean REAL social democrats) favor higher tax rates, support intervention in the economy to safeguard workers.  We were for free trade back in the day, though now many of the remaining social democrats who haven't signed up to the neoliberal Third Way b.s. tend to be wary of the job losses and other damages to the working-class it can cause. 
Social liberals, or left-liberals (think David Lloyd George) also believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but believe that government must play an active role in certain fields in order to ensure equality of opportunity and the three basic aforementioned rights.  They view poverty as the greatest enemy of these rights, and therefore support certain welfare schemes, workplace regulations, quality public education, etc. to achieve it.  The measures they propose, however , don't go as far as those proposed by social democrats.

The term "liberal" in America has a rather convoluted meaning.  In a very broad sense, it simply means "left."  Generally, American "liberals" include people who would be considered social democrats and social liberals in Europe and around the world. 

As far as Presidents go, I don 'to think you could really call any of them social democrats, at least while they were in office.  The pre-presidency incarnation of Obama could probably have been considered one.  FDR's measures were probably too mild for him to be called a social democrat, though his "Second Economic Bill of Rights" speech seems to have social democratic undertones.  Perhaps the closest thing we had to a social democratic president was Truman.  Kennedy was certainly not a social democrat when he was elected, though he seems to have been evolving leftward by the time of his assassination.  Johnson implemented a huge number of quasi-social democratic measures, but he ultimately cut many of them back for Vietnam.  Carter and Clinton were far too market-friendly to be considered social democrats.

However, we have had a number of prominent politicians in our history who could have been considered social democrats.  Robert La Follette, George Norris, Henry Wallace, Estes Kefauver, Paul Douglas, Hubert Humphrey, Bobby and Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Birch Bayh, Frank Church, Fred Harris, George McGovern, Tip O'Neill, Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Mario Cuomo, early Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Nancy Pelosi, and plenty of others would fit the bill.

[Redalgo]

A social democrat belongs in the most moderate branch of socialism. They favour incremental reforms, working from within the existing order to capture the state on behalf of the People. They pursue socialist objectives using a mixed, capitalist economy tempered with regulation, egalitarian welfare policies, significant use of taxation for redistribution; they tinker with corporatist policies, often shift some sectors of the economy under public control, and generally contend that political interests should have primacy over economic concerns. Many of 'em want this to serve as a stepping stone to democratic socialism, while some are "Third Way" folk who see social market (but still capitalist) economies as preferable to either free markets or a full transition to socialism.

Socialists demand that workers control the means of production, which is something the social democrats tend to neglect - oftentimes empowering labour unions and/or having the state run some industries but never really going all the way with workplace democracy, nationalization, cooperativization, etc. From the socialist perspective it is easy to see social democrats as being Moderate Hero types at best, or opportunistic capitalists taking advantage of the Left's talking points to advance their own interests - namely keeping the workers complacent - at worst.

Liberals believe in limited government, which is their main point of contention with the social democrats. A liberal will not advocate state-run industries unless it seems absolutely vital to preserving individual rights, and the liberal seeks to have a weak instead of strong state like the social democrats would prefer. The liberal will ask how the state can help individuals help themselves, whereas the social democrat is more inclined to ask how the state can reshape society to advance the common interest. I suppose social liberalism occupies a middle ground, perceiving individual and collective interests as often overlapping rather than being in conflict.

Finally - if by conservative you mean to say traditionalist - the most important difference is their rejection of egalitarianism. The conservative contends that some people are more valuable and worthy of fortune, entitlements, respect, happiness, etc. than others. These folks will not have a problem with "big" government, yet have values different from those of the social democrat. They are nationalists, put a lot of stock in loyalty, and do not feel as inclined to tolerate deviant behaviors, lifestyles, cultural influences, and so forth (i.e. they want a pure, morally wholesome society where people have similar customs). In contrast, the social democrat wants to treat all folk as equally valuable, usually is more internationalist or humanitarian than focused on national self-interest in foreign affairs, and are comfortable with welcoming a lot of diversity in society.

To answer you last question, FDR might have been a social democrat. I am not entirely sure about any of the others. A lot of people who identify as "liberal" in the U.S. would be better described as social democrats, though I will stop short of saying they mean the same thing here since I know there are differences between the social liberalism so popular in the States and social demcoracy.

[H. Ross Peron]

What is a Social Democrat exactly?

What separates a Social Democrat from a Socialist, a Liberal, and a Conservative?

 Have we had any Presidents in the US who could be termed Social Democrats?

Oh boy.  Antonio V's got a great paper on this up here somewhere. 

His essay is here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=167132.0

[All Along The Watchtower]

Bacon King is a good example of a Social Democrat (relative to this forum, anyway...)

[Lambsbread]

Actually, a Social Democrat is a Democrat who mingles well at parties.

[Donerail]

Actually, a Social Democrat is a Democrat who mingles well at parties.

^JFK was a prominent Social Democrat because of how well he got along with other people, but LBJ wasn't a Social Democrat at all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Synonym for Democratic Socialist (as opposed to a Revolutionary Socialist or a Communist, etc), specifically those from political traditions and political parties that trace their origins back to workers political movements of the 19th century. Most parties of that type modeled themselves on the SPD and so the label stuck. It can also - if less clearly sometimes - be used to describe newer political movements that have modeled themselves on those older political movements. In certain specific contexts it can also denote the right-wing faction of such a party, or a splinter group from it (c.f. the British SDP). It is almost never used to refer to left-wing splinters from such parties.

[Kitteh]

Actually, a Social Democrat is a Democrat who mingles well at parties.

I'm good at parties when drunk and/or high and mediocre otherwise, and I would vote for a few democrats sometimes. Does that mean  I have social democratic leanings?

[Lambsbread]

Actually, a Social Democrat is a Democrat who mingles well at parties.

I'm good at parties when drunk and/or high and mediocre otherwise, and I would vote for a few democrats sometimes. Does that mean  I have social democratic leanings?

Only when you're drunk and/or high.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Finally - if by conservative you mean to say traditionalist - the most important difference is their rejection of egalitarianism. The conservative contends that some people are more valuable and worthy of fortune, entitlements, respect, happiness, etc. than others. These folks will not have a problem with "big" government, yet have values different from those of the social democrat. They are nationalists, put a lot of stock in loyalty, and do not feel as inclined to tolerate deviant behaviors, lifestyles, cultural influences, and so forth (i.e. they want a pure, morally wholesome society where people have similar customs). In contrast, the social democrat wants to treat all folk as equally valuable, usually is more internationalist or humanitarian than focused on national self-interest in foreign affairs, and are comfortable with welcoming a lot of diversity in society.

The basic opposition to egalitarianism within traditionalist conservatism is that a healthy society requires people who serve different roles, which will involve some social inequality. The idea is generally that such an arrangement is ultimately for the best for all involved, not necessarily that some people are fundamentally less worthy of happiness. There are are localist conservatives as well as nationalist conservatives, which can be a major point of contention. Conservatism includes such a wide range of views that it's hard to say much definitive about it, and traditionalists have claimed conservatism to be a "body of sentiments" rather than an ideology (in the words of Russel Kirk).