Final answer:
Conservatives sought to preserve traditional social hierarchies and were opposed to rapid political change. They were characterized by their defense of established traditions and their belief in a gradual approach to reform. The correct answer is that they wanted few changes (option c).
Step-by-step explanation:
The best description of the Conservatives in historical context is that they wanted few changes (option c). Conservatism as a philosophy emerged as a defense against the rapid changes and innovations in politics, especially after the tumultuous events of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. It extolled the virtues of tradition, social hierarchy, and a gradual approach to political and social reform. Conservative Whigs, for instance, belonged to the politically and economically elite class that envisioned limiting political participation to a few powerful families.
Conservatism was based on the belief that established traditions and hierarchies provided stability and that rapid change could be destructive. It opposed the French Revolution's initial push for a more democratic society, which led to the execution of the king and chaos, underscoring their argument against rapid change. Conservatives favored maintaining monarchies and were against universal legal equality and suffrage. They believed in a social order that mirrored the existing economic hierarchy.
In contrast to liberalism, which embraced Enlightenment ideals and advocated for constitutional monarchies, representative governments, and individual rights, conservatism held a strong position against democracy, fearing it could lead to social instability and threaten property rights. The New Right of the 1980s exemplifies the continuation of conservative ideals, with an emphasis on reducing government influence in social welfare and upholding economic and global strength while opposing affirmative action strategies.
In practice, conservatism strove to protect the status quo, opposing the forces of nationalism and liberalism, but sometimes it became a defense for oppressive or corrupt regimes. It was a response to the belief that democracy and republicanism could not provide a stable social order, and a critique of the violent consequences of radical change.