I think the most interesting point for me was definitely the one saying that we should have stuck with conservatism the whole time instead of inventing new systems. Point being, if that was the case we'd still be living in the feudal system or something. Definitely not the post-war economic consensus. The point is that we had the feudal system, and we don't now, not even conservatives support that now. But the key point is that conservatives did support that, and if we're saying we should have stuck with conservatives then of course we'd still have what they supported then, and not now. Back then a true conservative would say why abandon the feudal system, it works, and if there's a squeaky wheel then it can get some grease, no need to overturn everything and create a new system after all.
So we certainly wouldn't have anything resembling a modern industrial society if we'd stuck to our guns about not overturning old systems. Pretty much all of us would be indentured serfs living on our lord's land, but the lord would own factories that we work in instead of just farms, and you'd basically be raised and expected to work the factories (which make goods for the few wealthy city-dwellers and weapons for the nation) or serve in your lord's militia, and don't get any silly ideas about changing your lot in life. And we'd probably have a life expectancy of about 50. And the conservative writers of the day would nod that this is the way it's always been, this is the way it's always going to be.
If you say there's some point that things should have stopped socially progressing, where is that point? What conservatives believe in 2020? If so, why that point and not what conservatives were saying at any other point in history, which was in fact very different. Remember that conservatives were dead against both universal suffrage and women's suffrage. If we hadn't listened to the liberals, then the conservatives would have had it so only a wealthy elite get to vote. So ... rejecting all things liberal as unneeded would mean you reject at the very least universal voting, and possibly reject democracy completely if you want to go back a few decades earlier than that. Or is it that everything liberals came up with between 1800 and 1950 is ok, but for some reason anything from the 1960s civil rights era onwards is too much, then how is that justified on the basis of logic?