The General Social Survey data can perhaps be illuminating here. The G.S.S. is widely regarded as the single best source of data on societal trends in the U.S. The G.S.S. has standardized demographic and attitudinal questions, etc., and many of the questions have remained the same since 1972 to facilitate time series studies.
Now, consider this G.S.S. question: "On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to reduce income differences between the rich and poor?" The allowed choices were "definitely should be," "probably should be," "probably should not be," and "definitely should not be."
In 1985, 17.3% responded that it definitely should be a responsibility of the government, 20.6% responded that probably it should be, 26.1% responded that probably it should not be, and 36.0% stated that definitely it should not be. In 2006, the responses were 27.2%, 23.8%, 25.8%, and 23.2%, respectively. The margin of error was negligible in both years. It does appear that there has been a shift in attitudes towards favoring reduction in income inequality.
Of course, I am not supporting here that socialism should mean only a reduction in income inequality, nor do I want to open a debate over the so-called "true meaning of socialism." That is Utopian. Nor do I claim that the U.S. population as a whole equates "socialism" with reductions in income and wealth inequality, although right-wing demagogues do attempt to create such an association.
Let's shamelessly affirm that income inequality is bad; large numbers are in agreement. And, in view of these data, the whole "socialism debate" in the U.S. can be turned to the advantage of a progressive and socialist politics.
epoliticus
-- "In the tender annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time immemorial ... the present year of course always excepted." -- A German refugee, circa 1867 --
http://epoliticus.wordpress.com/