Change is not necessarily progress, but progress is necessarily change.
It’s conceivable that, for a given situation, the status quo may actually be the best way to go about things, in which case change would not be progress. So sure, change just for the sake of change is stupid (as we’re currently discovering).
For progress, what counts is the ability to leave open the possibility that there might be better ways of doing things, and exercising our imaginations, in combination with the wisdom of past experience, to assess the costs and potential benefits of a new approach. Then, if benefits outweigh costs, you have to be willing to make a change.
I’m no doubt biased, but it appears to me that conservatives are more likely to assign a premium value to established ways of doing things, so that in making their cost/benefits calculations of new ideas, the cost of breaking with those old ways carries substantial weight. It takes a whole lot of potential benefit to move the needle against that counter-weight.
To liberals, there is less aura of value surrounding the established ways, so the calculation is more easily moved toward change.