Excuse me? I'm sorry to butt in here, but I'm really in shock about what I seem to be learning . . .
So in your definition, a 'conservative' could be in favor of big govt with unconstitutional powers if the purpose is to try and 'preserve' something that they percieve as good?
Funny, I truly thought that was the definition of a 'liberal'.
We definitely need a new term, then.
"Social Conservative" and "Political Conservative" are not the same thing. In fact, they appear to be opposites.
The term for this is "classical liberal." Unfortunately it'd be impossible to use this label to mean what it actually means, since the word "liberal" has been irrevocably hijacked.
Way to inflate another strawman. Do you want to discuss this rationally, or throw brickbats and play "gotcha"?
I see political identity as being on a x-y axis chart. On such, any position can be taken to the extreme. Certainly, conservatism could be taken to an extreme of enforced orthodoxy, as in "no change shall be allowed". You end up with something like the Shogunate era in Japan, with great stability and stagnation. Call that way out on the x-axis to the + side.
At the way -x end, out past the Liberal end of the scale, is a chaos where Change is embraced to the point of chaos.
On the y-axis, I see anarchy (no government at all) at the extreme + and totalitarianism (government in control of every aspect) at the extreme -.