The Status Quo can be interpreted as the current state of affairs. That is what is considered, at the moment, socially, politically or economically, normalcy. That being said, the status quo itself continuously changes. Society progresses, economies change and politics advance. The status quo of the modern world is not the same as it was in the times of Augustus Caesar. Nor is it the same as that of the European Dark Ages. Science, for the most part, is no longer considered heretically evil. The magics of the weather are now understood, and whereas before a bad harvest would have been explained by disfavor of the gods, today they are explained scientifically.
This is a repeated trend of human civilization. To progress socially, from the arranged marriages for finance to the currant voluntary ones. From the politics of kings to those, however tentative, of democracies and republics. From the feudal economics to those of global capitalism. All this is a movement from initially simpler, more restrictive states of human life to freer ones. (But the current ones are by no means the 'end of the road') It can be called progress, since humanity can measure progress by the freedom its members enjoy. People, at least in developed countries, are no longer bound to the land. Nor are women, at least in developed countries, considered property.

Thus society progresses, and the status quo of yesterday does not apply today. Granted these changes take time and they are not absolute, all-pervasive or discrete. The phrase, therefore, describes what the general nature for a society is in, lest say, a generation.

The point I am trying to make, however, is that to pursue the status quo in order to keep it forever is contradictory to human civilizational development. What is even more so is the demand of reaction. Civilization tends to progress forward, towards more "developed" states. Granted there are failures and setbacks, such as the Dark Ages following the collapse of Rome. However, to actively pursue a political, economic or social policy which is aimed at preserving the current status quo, or even more destructively, instituting a status quo of a previous period, is contrary to human development. Analogous, I would say, to trying to force a child many years in advance of toddlerhood to wear the clothes of that period.
To give an example of economics, it would not be much appreciated, nor would it be very beneficial, to revert from the global-market economics to the old mercantile ones of the Imperialist age. Politically, it would not be wise to demand that governments become once again absolutist monarchies, it would be counter productive. And it will not be wise to socially degenerate back to the age where women bind their feet. These aforementioned states were abandoned because something better was developed. Republics over kings, free-trade over mercantilism, greater self-determination over feudal service.

I would, therefore, conclude that any government which aims at preserving the current status quo, or at instituting an older one is in error. So is any social or economic organization. And so are any such politicians and leaders.
Comments? Discussion?

So long as it is possible to improve, then that is what we should do. And when you get to the point where it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That would be my approach.