Well you have to understand where I'm coming from to understand my answer.
I'm an arch-conservative liberal. Smiler to a libertarian but with a great mistrust of humanity, and no faith at all in the politics of populism. And as such, as much as I like liberty I believe there are limits. As it's impossible for any democracy to be founded on a constitution so strong as to remain permanently inviolate from the effects of the system, so too, there are no guarantees on freedom. Thus I prefer a more organic solution to problems, ie, a solution that relies on natural human instincts and behavior as a fundamental element of its operation. That's the part of me that's conservative. I'm so far to the right in a traditional way that most people on FR are to the left of me.
Thus I'm wary of any popular reactionism, because any such movement would have its only justification in popular will, which however morally and politically orthodox it may be in its ideals at the moment, it is still morally ambiguous in the long run and prone to progressive ideology as a consequence of its form.
So as to your question, I'm not sure, but I do believe the modern political movement under discussion is, (based upon the thoughts and understandings I've gleaned from your posts, and assuming you are a fairly garden-variety example), an idealistic one. So perhaps “Idealistic Neo-Rightist Political-Populism.” Of course such as description doesn't beg but demands the question... so it can't be used in our modern political arena as it's to complicated. In any case “conservative” only describes part of it, and not the most significant vis-a-vis its modern ascendancy.
Whew!
That is a mouthful.
Altho I'd quibble a bit -- no 'idealism' here at all. In fact, 'Idealism' is what I'm fighting against.
I'm suggesting that politically 'conservative' means careful. Careful to only push for policies and solutions which are proven solid workable systemic solutions.
As Reagan pointed out in that speach, it is the 'ideologues' who are the problem with the R party. The folks on this thread who say, "if you don't believe x and y, you aren't one of us, regardless of your other views".
How do you implement oversight in a government without adding to said government?
By voting the bums out, of course.
My point is we need to vote for politicians who aggressively police their own party. When they don't, when they turn their backs on misdeeds by "their own", we vote them out.