Well... Uncle Ben wasn´t exactly a Martin Luther King. That is to say, Drusus was no radical.

My memory is shaky but I think that the main points about his tribunate were 1) giving the juries to senators 2) increasing the senate size (double or triple?) 3) giving the Italian socii the citizenship.

Not exactly radical. The thing is that the relations between some leading equestrians and senators had become inflamed over some years. The equstrians wanted more gloria and influence. And when they got the juries they could be just as corrupt as senatorial juries (cf. the Rutilius Rufus case). Giving back the juries to the senate was conservative and addressing the "inferiority complex" of leading equestrians by making them senators was in a way too. It was rational conservatism (like the "New Labour" in UK, or the Democrats in the US. LOL). This would reenforce the old way making the senate the leader of state policy. Also, enrolling the Italian allies may sound radical but at 91 BC it was necessary. They wanted recognision as equals and their nobles wanted power (Drusus had good relations with them cf. Poppaedius Silo hanging little Cato from the window). Drusus´moderate policy was supported by Scaurus, Crassus, and other leading conservatives.

The main reason for Drusus´ fall was that some equites didn´t like his reforms... organized a counter-reactive opposition, by the time of his death it was clear that Drusus wouldn´t succeed and that Rome would face her first civil war.

And a LOL to Herky, yes that was from memory. I don´t own a copy of the Augustan Aristocracy.