A lot of what people are asking for is not radical in any sense other than that the status quo of USA in the 1970s is painted as "radical" now.

Making public colleges as (inflation-adjusted) inexpensive as they were in 1970. Restoring the ability of builders to build sufficient housing to increase affordability. Restoring the gun control regime endorsed by Ronald Reagan. A return to a workplace culture where it is not normal for companies to continually lay people off, regardless of their performance or the performance of the business. Etc.

Is it really "radical" to return to the enacted policies & norms of 1973 or 1980? (I am realizing I wrote this sentence in a comment thread about a person who has written about "humane" forms of genocide. The dissonance!)

Would it be a radical change to our system of government to extend Medicare to cover people as young as 60? 50? 40? 30? 18? Or to let people opt to buy, at full fare, health insurance from the government? Where is the line at which it becomes radical?

> being unusually open to economic changes and technological changes that transform our society

I agree with you here. Unfortunately, I think part of the reason for that is because we have designed an unusually precarious (among rich countries) economic system. Many people are looking for a solution to that problem, and the next gimmick can get early adoptees if it promises a way out. But that last part, about transforming society, highlights the issue that we all know this system needs radical change, even if we don't want to admit it.