In a broader view, one that does not confine itself to strictly American systems, social liberalism focuses on the dissolution of class structure, while economic liberalism looks towards a radical redistribution of wealth. Can you argue that Jesus did not stand for these things?
Mark 10:21 – “And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor”
Mark 10:25 – “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Luke 14:13 – “But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind”
In Matthew 25:31–46 Jesus paints a picture of judgement in which there are 2 groups, sheep and goats. The sheep, who clothed and fed the poor, were welcomed. The goats, who did nothing for the poor, were cast aside.
There are more, but these clearly point towards a more communal approach in which individual wealth is discouraged and the well-being of the group is encouraged – a redistribution of wealth based on need rather than ability.
As for his social policies, he associated with the lowest members of the caste structure. In Mark 2:16 he was chastised for eating with sinners. He healed on the Sabbath. He broke with tradition and established norms, going so far as to viciously denounce the Pharisees. His actions showed an utter disregard for social structure, and disregard is a form of personal dissolution.
It seems that the only structure he was content to leave be was the political one. In Matthew 22:21 he states the infamous “render unto Caesar,” which has been interpreted as a division between the personal/religious and the state.
This is the opinion, at least, that I formed back when I was studying the synoptic gospels. It also discounts entirely John, which is highly stylized and likely written around 100–110 AD, and any of the remaining books of the New Testament. I’m just focusing on the 3 books that are considered more historical.