I relate to the Burkean ideas on radical innovation versus reform, but I define revolutionary innovation as those social changes that try to go contrary to human nature, and I define social changes that harmonize with human nature as reform. This was defined in the old way as “God's providence” involved in history, and not humanity trying to make its own history outside of nature and real human nature, which has natural limits, or divine limits as to what man can do. Also the sacred is seen here in the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood which activates life from within to evolve toward Godhood, as life is shaped by evolutionary selection from outside.
Human nature has been gradually defined more accurately over human history and is now most accurately defined (by sociobiology) as kin-centered and group-selecting, along with being gender-defined, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, among other mostly traditional or conservative things. This is nature, this is human nature, and this is the human nature which our social and cultural forms should try to harmonize with---when they do not it often causes more human suffering than it tries to remedy. For example, Marxism (and cultural Marxism), and more recently global neoconservatism, move outside of real human nature and cause much suffering as a consequence, in the long term. However, some versions of traditionalism also block real human nature in turning their backs on materialism in general.
In our religious philosophy, reform not revolution is seen in both theological materialism and in the Twofold Path, which retain both Godhood and the traditional Inward Path to the symbolic experience of the Father Within, but these are reformed or transformed in the Outward Path of material/supermaterial evolution to real Godhood. And the political ethnopluralism hypothesis discussed here is a reform, it is a return to the separation of powers and states of the original U.S. Constitution, and follows closely the needs of real human nature in being kin-centered and group-selecting. Revolution is not advocated for these reforms. Antiquity and the past of our forefathers is respected, but the past is not put up as a great blockade to our future sacred evolution.