OK here's a sketchy timeline for you:
1930s--FDR doesn't win (maybe he's dead or otherwise prevented from running); the Democrats either fail to win or run someone much less visionary. No "nothing to fear but fear itself" message, welfare is haphazard, a conservative mentality fears any major innovation, the USA limps along. Communism, bearing in mind that whatever the USSR's liabilities are, getting caught in the global economic collapse was not one of them, is far more popular, but never enough to actually take over. Abortive attempts at revolution, by Communists and by other radicals, fail and further harden the bunker mentality of the ruling conservative establishment, whether their party label is Republican or Democratic. The public is in cynical, atomized apathy.
The rest of the world does largely develop along the same lines; the USA does get entangled in WWII, getting into open confrontation with Japan earlier (but with less preparation than OTL due to the lack of a lot of infrastructural renovation that happened under the New Deal) which ties up US resources from being available as OTL for the European theatre. There is still ultimately a pro-British alliance that leads to a de facto co-belligerency with the Soviets, and American aid is deemed generous by all concerned but, while substantial is still far less than OTL due both to reduced US capacity and to our priority going to Japan.
But in the general mobilization, the industrial capacity does begin to ramp up; a great many of the long-unemployed or underemployed masses do get recruited directly into the military, and the industrial workers are also mobilized and deemed servicemembers "for the duration." In a left-handed way, there is indeed public charity and a safety net, but strictly under the label of military service; labor unions are not tolerated because the workforce is in uniform. By no means is this universally accepted and leftist "subversion" is a constant fear of the ruling establishment but a very large number of the potentially revolutionary masses are grateful and embrace national service as their salvation.
Overseas--the war with Japan goes well enough but in Europe the USA is not able to amass a continental invasion in time; the Soviets, though worse off due to less American aid, slowly bring Hitler to a halt, start pushing back, and by 1945 are invading Germany. The ultimate defeat of the Reich is pretty much entirely at Soviet hands and Stalin rules the continent. The British conservatives are exhausted and discredited; despite American attempts to dissuade the wartime establishment, Parliamentary elections are held and Labour takes over, and between their conflicts with the Americans and the Americans having less of a strong hand than OTL, they make their peace with Stalin--they don't hand over anything still British to the Russians, and despite the weak condition of the Commonwealth the USSR is also punch-drunk, devastated, and has bit off even more to chew than OTL already and Stalin is grateful for a truce with people he for the moment deems fine progressive fellow Socialists. The USA has no foothold in Europe and withdraws to manage its conquests in the Pacific and to face the Red menace there alone. Also, holding on to hegemony in Latin America is tougher due to the lack of the Rooseveltian "Good Neighbor" interlude--which to be sure OTL was as much breach as observance as witness the situation in say Nicaragua, but here there is no figleaf to cover the naked "gunboats/Big Stick" side of this timeline's interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.
The American establishment prevails for the moment in the Western Hemisphere and Pacific (with Australia and New Zealand vacillating between the gung-ho capitalistic Yanks and the leftward movement of Britain). But it is in a state of persistent existential panic about leftist subversion and the huge military mobilization and de facto cartelization of industry stands.
Civil rights were by and large very much a casualty; there is little room for idealism and little tolerance for dissent. African-Americans do have some leverage for progress, largely on an individual basis, by means of merit within the military (leveraged by the imperial overreach that makes anyone with something to contribute valuable, if they can be trusted politically) but the basic racism of US society goes unchallenged save in incremental, peripheral accomodations subject to sudden reversal if it seems to go "too far."
----This is about as close as I can come to a "normal" America that has a big military but no ostensible social welfare program; what stability it has depends on the military establishment ruthlessly policing itself for ideological conformity and obedience. It is a world where, even if the moneyed establishment is not expropriated outright one fine day by a praetorian coup, and continues to "call the shots," its hands are tied by restricted access to markets and poor development of the consumer market. Millions, billions, ultimately trillions of dollars for "defense" but these dollars are hard to come by. A lower standard of living is expected by all, there is less leverage of attraction to win allies overseas and more fear and contempt for the USA and again no one imagines it could be otherwise. I don't see it evolving into any sort of more liberal order and the danger of some sort of radical revolution--either on leftist or on even more fascistic lines--looms; stability would amount to stagnation.
Not a pretty picture.
