You're telling me that rural Alabama is more liberal than Sweden? I think your viewpoint is leaning on definitions of "social" and "liberal" and "US" that are not universally understood.
As to the particulars of your comment, States should have far more autonomy than they do under FDR's federalist system. States should be able to tax more, but with the Feds already eating 20-50% of the populations income, States have a hard time raising funds. If we weakened the feds, but first paying down the debt, Alabama might have a far more interesting economy.
Republicans would obviously not accept this. We would likely replay the decades leading up to the Civil War, where adding states was a contentious and at times violent process.
The feds would also have to approve it. If Republicans can stop it, they will. If Democratic politicians can push it through, they would likely get blowback from moderates. Republicans would get power and seek to balance or even advantage themselves. We could end up with eight Dakotas (just kidding on this specific example; other Republican states might want to split too).
This is not a fight either party wants to start because it could be a disaster for them. The intended outcome (increase relative Senate representation) has slim odds and a high cost.
It’s not even a close contest. There’s literally not a labor party here.
Throw in employee protections and reasonable amounts of vacation time, and I'm with you 100%.
There's a myth around American politics largely pepetuated by people that have only had political experience in one place or only uses the media as a means to know the politics of countries. Even on abortion, the US has among the least restrictive in the entire world, looser than Germany, France, etc.
The big thing America really lacks is universal healthcare, which is the main axe people wield over the head of American politics to claim it's only corporatist right leaning. Government outlays really tell a different story than the narrative.