The article you linked literally says that Abott wants a convention to propose amendments that will give more power and autonomy to the states and less to the federal government.
Let me rephrase what I said. Conservatives want a smaller federal government with less centralized control (which is what the original constitution intended). Progressives want a big government that strips the states and the people of their autonomy and individual rights (not what the original constitution intended).
How ever many amendments are added or not is irrelevant. The US was built on individualism and freedom, not on collectivism and equality. That is an undeniable fact. And the founding fathers tried to protect as much of that as possible with the BOR, that is also an undeniable fact.
The constitution itself is kind of irrelevant in the point I'm making, because technically if we had a Democrat presidency, senate, house and SC, I'm pretty sure the first, second, and fourth amendment would be different, but it would still be the constitution. And if we ever got to that point, I'm sure that conservatives would cease to be constitutionalists.
Conservatives don't support the constitution itself, they support the original idea that it protects (and thankfully, mostly still protects to this day), because the document can be changed at any time. The reason why we say we want to conserve it, is because the constitution, as of now, already represents our ideas (Abott's changes are redundant at best), if the constitution was what liberals wish it to be, we would obviously want to change it.
Basically what I'm saying is that it's not the actual change that "scares" us, it's the change that democrats want to make that bothers us.
And yeah, you can make an argument about how demographics change and values change over time and all that, and that laws should be updated to represent the people etc etc. But if it was like that, Republicans wouldn't control the government. I'm just thankful the Supreme Court will swing right for years to come.