Whoa Cowboy. I'm a real conservative, no neo, paleo or libertarian. Your definition is the fake assumption of the "progressives". Conservatives want to conserve institutions not the status quo. We want to conserve what is good and change the rest. We learn from history to find what works and what doesn't. We don't live in history.
Adams wrote that "Our constitution was designed for a moral and religious people, it is wholly unfit for the government of any other." (paraphase) What separates me from Libertarianism is that there are thing that as a society we should not allow. I like not having pornagraphic TV shows on saturday at 8:00 am.
I understand and respect your position and use of the term conservative. I use the term when I describe myself, but I usually add the caveat that I mean by that I am a "cynical liberal." I understand the distinction between conserving institutions, not the status quo, but believe that this is a nuance added by people in the movement, and not in keeping with linguistic traditions. In many cases conservatives have been the defender of the status quo, regardless of the consequences in human terms. The crown loyalists in 1776 were the conservatives of their time. It depends on the institutions you are defending. It also depends on whom you let set the definitions.
It goes along with the forced definitions foisted by the leftist media of conservatives being on the "right," of therefore being fascists, or "bad," and people on the left being progressives, or "good." That is why I remind people that Hitler and Mussollini were socialists, true leftists, who differed with their partners on the left only when it came down to who would be in charge of the march to conquer the world (Hitler and Stalin's non-aggression treaty being the origin of that thought for me).
Even though I cherish the label conservative, as it has come to be known and embraced in modern times, particularly by Ronald Reagan, I still resent the implied cubbyhole that Dan Rather is trying to put me into by using the label on me and mine, as well as the implied superiority he claims for himself by embracing his definition of the term "liberal."
Maybe it would be easier if I started just referring to myself and those I agree with as the good guys and pointed to those who oppose us as the bad guys? Nah, that would be too judgemental and not PC .
Best