The way the OP uses the word 'progress' reminds me a little of the movie
Braveheart with its completely unelaborated concept of 'freedom'. As Beet said, the only way presenting 'progress' itself as inherently good and 'social conservatism' itself as inherently evil makes any sense at all is if one is both a believer of some stripe in the concept of permanent revolution and basically amoral about what the exact content of the revolution should be. This is why I haven't described my own political views as 'progressive' in years.
If you want to get at big banks, the best approach is not regulation, which the banks welcome because they can navigate it with their armies of lawyers and win special favors and carve outs. Instead, what you need is a smarter effective approach to regulation that discourages monopolies and also the risky behaviors, whilst incentivizing the competition and maintaining the necessary competativeness that will prevent things like the crash.
I can't really parse the second sentence of this paragraph. The following paragraph helps somewhat, but only somewhat. Would you mind expanding on it a little bit?