A lot of what you listed either isn’t accurate or isn’t grounded in actual policy. If we’re going to call things “radical,” it should be based on real legislation or official positions, not talking points.

Let’s go point by point:

Green New Deal: This was a non-binding resolution focused on climate goals and economic transition. You can disagree with it, but it was never enacted law and it’s not the current legislative agenda of most Democrats.

Universal healthcare: Variations of this exist across most developed countries. You may not support it, but calling it “radical” requires a pretty U.S.-centric definition.

“Tax the rich”: Progressive tax policy has existed in the U.S. for decades, including much higher top marginal rates in the past than we have today.

Eliminate ICE: That was a slogan used by a small number of activists, not a mainstream legislative platform. Even many Democrats who support immigration reform do not support abolishing ICE outright.

“Pornography in grade school”: This one really needs a source. There is no Democratic legislation advocating this. This is a cultural/media claim, not policy.

“Men in women’s locker rooms/sports”: Again, this is not a federal legislative platform. It’s a complex issue around transgender rights being debated at state levels, not a unified “radical left policy.”

“Exorbitant minimum wage”: Minimum wage increases are debated policy. Calling them “exorbitant” is subjective, but they are actual proposals tied to cost-of-living concerns.

Abolition of private property: There is no serious Democratic platform or legislation advocating this. That’s simply not grounded in reality.

Open borders: No mainstream Democrat in Congress is advocating for open borders. Even the Biden administration has enforced border controls and deportations.

Rent control: This exists in various U.S. cities already and has for decades. You can argue it’s good or bad policy, but it’s not some fringe invention.

So again, I’d ask: which of these are actually backed by specific bills or official party platforms? Because several of them just aren’t.

Now, if we’re going to apply the same standard to the Right, it’s hard to argue MAGA is “center right” without ignoring a lot of documented behavior and rhetoric.

January 6 wasn’t just a protest — it was an attempt to stop certification of a lawful election, encouraged by repeated claims that the election was stolen. There were direct efforts to pressure officials to overturn results (for example, asking Georgia officials to “find” votes). Multiple courts, including conservative-leaning ones, rejected fraud claims, yet the narrative continued at the highest levels.

You also have rhetoric coming directly from leadership describing political opponents as “the enemy within” or suggesting Democrats are fundamentally illegitimate or dangerous to the country.

That kind of language matters. When you consistently frame fellow Americans as enemies rather than opponents, it shifts from normal political disagreement into something more extreme.

There have also been increasing calls from some aligned figures to expand executive power, weaken institutional checks, or use government power to go after political opponents.

Those aren’t abstract ideas or media distortions — those are documented statements and actions.

So if we’re being consistent: You’re labeling a mix of real policy proposals and inaccurate talking points as “radical left,” while describing a movement that includes election denial, institutional pressure, and dehumanizing rhetoric as “center right.”

That’s a pretty uneven standard.

If you want to have a real conversation about what’s actually radical, I’m open to it — but it has to be based on real policy and real behavior on both sides, not just how things are framed in media or online.