It is fine to say you think an essay lacks somethign you would prefer it had said but to say it is done deliberately sounds somewhat insulting.

Second, if you think progressives fall into the category of liberalism you have read much in the way of the history of the Progressive movement which was rather regressive and often quite socially conservative. For the US history I can recomment "Illiberal Reformer" from Princeton University Press.

As for lacking nuance check your second paragraph where you say "everyone contains both liberal and conservative values within their individual psyches...." Well, that is quite different from the actual topic of this piece. Yes, there are issues where I personally am rather conservative—I oppose the use of recretional drugs for instance including marijuana and I don't touch alcohol. But that has nothing to do with politics.

A conservative politically wants the system to impose their preferences on others. I do not want to force people to follow my social values. I leave them free which is where the word liberal comes from.

I am sorry you have read Hayek, who I was quoting. He won the Nobel Prize in economics for defending free markets and he discussed the topic of change in his section, "Why I Am Not a Conservative."

To say the classical liberal thinks all change is good is simply false. The liberal advocating a free society merely argues that social evolution should be free to happen and that what is good or bad is part of a discovery process not the result of moral central planners imposing from the top. It is a bottom-up phenomenon and is generally good—which is why the society is more prosperous over time and freer.

I don't know of any liberal/libertarian thinker who argues all change is peachy. To argue they do is tilting at windmills imagining them to be dragons.