So I guess we're to conclude that being "radicalized" is really a good thing, after all.
But why is the review written using Marxist terminology?
1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
Any of those, with the exception of the anarchistic bit, might apply to some extent to the Founders.
The Founding was a radically conservative Revolution. It overthrew the British government in the name of protecting the root principles of inalienable human rights.
In the context of the time, I think radical is indeed an appropriate word, for the ideas being espoused took a sharp turn from the prevailing wisdom and orthodoxy, that general warrants should be illegal, that men should hold only one office at a time, that there was higher law than acts of Parliament, that those in power should be criticized and even ridiculed, these were truly radical.