If the first of those were true, it might reasonably be classified as radical. The others, no. Nationalized health care is SOP in industrialized countries
But it isn't SOP in the US. "Radical" can be measured in different contexts. For example someone proposing state recognition of gay marriages in Utah or Texas in 1980 might be considered radical, but if it was in San Francisco today, or even in 1980, then not so much.
Nationalizing health insurance is a radical change for the US, even if it isn't a radical change when measured at the level of all wealthy countries, or the world as a whole.
Likewise, anything in common practice cannot be radical.
Again that applies on different levels. Banning handguns might not be extremely radical across the world, but it would be radical in the US.
Also even when your measuring on a level where it is common practice, if its mostly new and a departure from the previous norm then it could still be considered radical. (I can't think of a good real world example of this specific case, but imagine that most nations had a strong equivalent of 2nd amendment rights and they tossed them out and started to ban handguns 6 months to a year ago, it would now be common practice but its a decisive break from the past, and hasn't really become the real norm yet, so it could still be a radical idea even though it is now in place. |
