Not sure I buy it, because conservatism is not a self-contained ideology, it is a reaction to progressivism’s attempts to subvert precedent and experience. Without progressivism, there would be no conservatism, and progressivism has only been around a few hundred years, so the spectrum seems to cater to modern perceptions of politics rather than a universal.
The Founders for instance, continued sodomy statutes in the USA, Washington famously dismissed Lt. Enslin in 1778 for attempting sodomy with another soldier. Was Washington really a ‘big government’ guy? Was he a ‘social conservative’? No, this wasn’t seen as government overreach any more than laws against murder or theft. That came later with the advance of progressivism and the destruction of the institutions that used to perform roles the government could not, namely the church and family.
There was no social conservatism or liberalism at this time, you were either depraved or moral, and that was it.
Definitions are important.
There was a time when Liberal was conservative.
If you were for less government intrusion, you were considered Liberal.
It was in Judge Robert Bork’s book; (great book)
Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline
http://www.amazon.com/Slouching-Towards-Gomorrah-Liberalism-American/dp/0060573112
Where Judge Bork, who I think was quoting Newt Gingrich, said “Conservatism, is Anarchy with Guardrails”. The guardrails being the moral character of the Judeo-Christian nature of man and our founding.