That's the price a political party pays when it's not tied to a firm set of ideological principles -- what it stands for politically varies over time, depending on what way the political winds are blowing. And that's why various groups within the party spar with each other for political control, so they can use the party to implement the things on its agenda.
The problem with this is that historically, conservatism has been associated with small, less intrusive government. Modern Liberals, on the other hand, see government as an instrument to be used to achieve their braod range of social & economic goals, whether it be "fruits in foxholes" or redistribution of wealth. When the Republican Party morphs into something that supports massive government spending programs on all manner of pork-barrel hokum, and at the same time tries to use the coercive power of government to achieve social goals (even if some of them be laudable), it betrays its conservative roots, and begins to resemble the Democrat Party, except their respective social and economic agendae may be different: but BOTH parties think it's okay to use tax dollars and the power of the government to achieve THIER respective social & economic goals.
I find that a dangerous idea.... when political parties begin treating government as an instrument of raw power to be wielded in pursuit of the parties' "platforms du jour." Washington warned us: "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."