Actually, a 3/4ths vote of the individual States would be very hard, indeed, to radicalize. Neither political party has come close to having 3/4ths of the State legislatures, since Reconstruction.
However, at the same time, and right now, there is national, bipartisan agreement among the State legislatures, that the power of the federal government has far exceeded its authorization, and that it is both unlawfully taking away State authority, and making endless unfunded mandates for the States to pay.
This goes to my point of the constitutional convention being focused on reducing federal power.
Importantly, even at the national level, there are a lot of federal officeholders who have discovered that even they cannot stop the explosive growth of government, as if it had taken on a life of its own. For example, many senators and congressmen are very frustrated with the national intelligence agencies, who are in many cases out of control and have no limiting power over them.
The combination of federal momentum and inertia has snowballed into being an uncontrollable monstrosity. Only the individual States have the authority to stop it.
Arguments against a constitutional convention, based on risk, are legitimate, but my argument is that when it happens, it will literally be because there is no other choice. At which point, arguments against it become moot.