Webster’s definition is the correct definition of conservative as applicable world-wide. American conservatism is peculiar in that much of what we wish to conserve is actually classical liberalism — the American Founding being the quintessentially classical liberal event in all of history — free markets, free speech, freedom of religion,... all being seen by the Founders as part of a natural (and humanly beneficial) whole. European conservatism, by contrast, is often monarchist and supportive of a paternalistic state.
Incidentally this is the reason the American left hijacked the word “liberal” when the populace rejected anything labeled “socialist” or “progressive” — they want to seem (or even claim to themselves) to uphold the American Founding, which the American people as a conservative people, wish to conserve. In Australia the party that upholds the same ideals as American conservatism is called the Liberal Party (while the left-wing party is the Labor Party — yes, the Aussies also dropped the u from labour).
Incidentally, I want the word “liberal” back. The left can have “fascist” as a descriptor, since they actually have no regard for liberty and since history has proven communism to be a non-viable expression of the left’s totalitarian impulses, the left, world-wide, has a program essentially identical to that of Italian fascism — the state should control everything broadly, some aspects of life minutely, while enough of a semblance of a market economy remains that the rich can be coopted rather than looted or killed.
Not according to the author, but you are entitled to your opinion and so so is she. :)
I would suggest, however, that you substitute Nazi for Fascist as a better description of the modern faux "Liberal." While the Fascists were certainly totalitarian; they did not apply it as ruthlessly as did the German National Socialists--the latter being very close to the Bolsheviks in their extreme attack on individualism & the centralization of all power.