That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day Right-leaning person wants "radical change", aside from a few keys areas (see below), and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical changes" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, Right-leaning people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.

These "radical changes" are about restoring society to be more functional, moral, & stable (i.e., having a net effect that is the opposite of "radical"), like it would have been prior to the "woke"/Marxist subversion of The West, and, prior to the wide-spread corruption by the elites. In other words, the average Right-leaning person wants to preserve/conserve our way of life.

The "far-left", aka, the "radical left", clearly want very radical changes to Western society. They are for revolution. If their agenda comes to fruition, America and The West will effectively cease to be America and The West as we know it to be. Society as a whole would radically change. We can go through many examples of that.

They openly state this as their goal, see for instance, Obama's speech prior to entering office, where he said something to the effect of "we are going to fundamentally change America".

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", aside from a few keys areas (see below), and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical changes" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, Right-leaning people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.

These "radical changes" are about restoring society to be more functional, moral, & stable (i.e., having a net effect that is the opposite of "radical"), like it would have been prior to the "woke"/Marxist subversion of The West, and, prior to the wide-spread corruption by the elites. In other words, the average Right-leaning person wants to preserve/conserve our way of life.

The "far-left", aka, the "radical left", clearly want very radical changes to Western society. They are for revolution. If their agenda comes to fruition, America and The West will effectively cease to be America and The West as we know it to be. Society as a whole would radically change. We can go through many examples of that.

They openly state this as their goal, see for instance, Obama's speech prior to entering office, where he said something to the effect of "we are going to fundamentally change America".

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", aside from a few keys areas (see below), and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, Right-leaning people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.

These "radical changes" are about restoring society to be more functional, moral, & stable, like it would have been prior to the "woke"/Marxist subversion of The West, and, prior to the wide-spread corruption by the elites.

In other words, trying to preserve/conserve our way of life, and so, their net effect would be the opposite of "radical".

The "far-left", aka, the "radical left", clearly want very radical changes to Western society. They are for revolution. If their agenda comes to fruition, America and The West will effectively cease to be America and The West as we know it to be. Society as a whole would radically change. We can go through many examples of that.

They openly state this as their goal, see for instance, Obama's speech prior to entering office, where he said something to the effect of "we are going to fundamentally change America".

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", aside from a few keys areas (see below), and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, Right-leaning people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.

These "radical changes" are about restoring society to be more functional, moral, & stable, like it would have been prior to the "woke"/Marxist subversion of The West, and, prior to the wide-spread corruption by the elites.

In other words, trying to preserve/conserve our way of life, and so, their net effect would be the opposite of "radical".

The "far-left", aka, the "radical left", clearly want very radical changes to Western society. If their agenda comes to fruition, America and The West will effectively cease to be America and The West as we know it to be. Society as a whole would radically change. We can go through many examples of that.

They openly state this as their goal, see for instance, Obama's speech prior to entering office, where he said something to the effect of "we are going to fundamentally change America".

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", aside from a few keys areas (see below), and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, Right-leaning people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.

These "radical changes" are about restoring society to be more functional, moral, & stable, like it would have been prior to the "woke"/Marxist subversion of The West, and, prior to the wide-spread corruption by the elites.

In other words, trying to preserve/conserve our way of life, and, in a sense, their net effect would be the opposite of "radical".

The "far-left", aka, the "radical left", clearly want very radical changes to Western society. If their agenda comes to fruition, America and The West will effectively cease to be America and The West as we know it to be. Society as a whole would radically change. We can go through many examples of that.

They openly state this as their goal, see for instance, Obama's speech prior to entering office, where he said something to the effect of "we are going to fundamentally change America".

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", aside from a few keys areas (see below), and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, Right-leaning people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.

These are both about restoring society to be more functional, moral, & stable, like it would have been prior to the "woke"/Marxist subversion of The West, and, prior to the wide-spread corruption by the elites. In other words, trying to preserve/conserve our way of life.

The "far-left", aka, the "radical left", clearly want very radical changes to Western society. If their agenda comes to fruition, America and The West will effectively cease to be America and The West as we know it to be. Society as a whole would radically change. We can go through many examples of that.

They openly state this as their goal, see for instance, Obama's speech prior to entering office, where he said something to the effect of "we are going to fundamentally change America".

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", aside from a few keys areas (see below), and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, Right-leaning people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.

These are both about restoring society to be more functional, moral, & stable, like it would have been prior to the "woke"/Marxist subversion of The West, and, prior to the wide-spread corruption by the elites.

The "far-left", aka, the "radical left", clearly want very radical changes to Western society. If their agenda comes to fruition, America and The West will effectively cease to be America and The West as we know it to be. Society as a whole would radically change. We can go through many examples of that.

They openly state this as their goal, see for instance, Obama's speech prior to entering office, where he said something to the effect of "we are going to fundamentally change America".

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", aside from a few keys areas (see below), and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, Right-leaning people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.

These are both about restoring society to be more functional, moral, & stable, like it would have been prior to the "woke"/Marxist subversion of The West, and, prior to the wide-spread corruption by the elites.

The "far-left", aka, the "radical left", clearly want very radical changes to Western society. If their agenda comes to fruition, America and The West will effectively cease to be America and The West as we know it to be. Society as a whole would radically change. We can go through many examples of that.

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites. This can be seen in the "drain the swamp" rhetoric.

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's also what the "far-right" has been branded as, agreed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites.

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's what the "far-right" has been branded as too, indeed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called for are in places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage, people generally seem to want this to be marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement/ideology has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites.

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's what the "far-right" has been branded as too, indeed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called are places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage being marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites.

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and accurate definitions.

That's what the "far-right" has been branded as too, indeed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The term "far-right" can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

As a side-note, for the American Right, which is roughly defined by the ideals imbedded within the Constitution & the Bible, the principles of the Right will mostly stay static, how they apply to the present-day would evolve a bit.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called are places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage being marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites.

As you can probably tell, I've given this topic a decent amount of thought. The next time someone labels me as "far-right" they better be able to back it up, with examples and definition.

That's what the "far-right" has been branded as too, indeed.

I think that's mostly the result of those being useful labels to attack people on the Right with.

So, the two have effectively become conflated, though, there may have originally been a distinction between the two, or, the "alt-right" might have been a subset of the "far-right".

The "alt-right" was a movement, started by a relatively small group of people. The "far-right", can be much broader.

By definition, "far right" ought to mean "radical right", which implies, people on the Right who want radical changes (of some sort). What sorts of changes people would want would slowly change as society evolves, and so, the definition of "far right" would slowly evolve as well.

In practice, it's difficult for me to see how the average-day right-leaning person wants "radical change", and thus, most wouldn't fall into the category of "far-right".

The only reasonable "radical change" on the Right I can see being called are places where the Right have lost significant ground in the past generation or two, such as: (1) woke garbage being marginalized, which wouldn't have been radical say 5-15 years ago, but, the woke movement has become so wide-spread that in a sense it would be a radical change for it to go away, and (2) politicians & elites be held to account for their bad behaviour, which is the way things ought to be, but, these days, it seems that there's "rules for thee, but not for me", particularly for Left-leaning elites.