No actually that's what I'm claiming you are doing. I'm saying conservatism is to maintain the status quo and depending on who you ask, the ideology is relative.
It's relative, but the thinking is that tradition should be respected more than liberals respect it (liberals are more respecting of reason than tradition).
Communism in Russia at the time of the Soviet union was the status quo and heairchy that needed to be maintained. In Europe the status quo was to maintain the monarchy while in America it was the directives of classic liberalism that needed to be upheld. Limited government, free market economies, constitutional republicanism and a seperation of church and state was the status quo. By your logic conservatism does not ebb and flow that way but instead is constant and a fixed ideology which is simply false. So yes conservatism in Europe at the time meant what you are saying but it is decidedly different in America.
OK, but conservatism isn't the only right-wing ideology. The "conservative" movement in America isn't actually conservative (note the radical change under Reagan, for example).
We cannot continue in a meaningful way because of this fundamental difference. As a leftist you have more in common with a nazi or a communist than a classical liberal does and this is because we use statism and collectivism or a lack thereof to indicate we are on the political spectrum.
I can't imagine that you have any familiarity with my thinking of you're saying this. And statism or collectivism aren't relevant to the political spectrum. Conservatism is very collectivist, and it's a right-wing ideology, for example. As is fascism. And monarchy. There are collectivist left-wing ideologies, as well. And anarchism is the most extreme left-wing ideology.
We cannot go on if you insist on believing that conservatism in America is not a an amalgamation of philosophical thought that includes Hobbes, Locke, and Smith (among others) that were considered progressive at the time but are now conservative by our modern standards.
I pointed out examples of the thinking of Locke and Smith--key aspects to their approaches--that would put them utterly at odds with American "conservatives" and in line with American liberals (which makes sense, as that's the same tradition). Locke's views on property would be considered progressive today, and Smith's views on inheritance (among many other things) would put him on the far left in America--beyond where modern progressives are willing to go, in fact. There's little remaining of liberal traditions in the conservative movement in America.
Once more American conservatism/Classical liberalism is an amalgamation of thought. I have read a lot of his work for school and it makes not a lick of difference if he is left according to anyone because structure of government and alot of the language of the constitution was taken directly from Locke and not Smith. Smith provided an economic frame work.
Locke was also a liberal with minimal influence on today's conservatives, and Smith's economic framework is rejected by the right in America.
I wouldn't be looking towards the voting block as a monolith nor would I make a judgement on the ideology bases on how Republicans or Democrats voted. It's irrelevant. What's being discussed here is a political paradigm and the meaning of American conservatism which is an ideology.
That's not what's consistently being discussed, otherwise we'd have to note that the American conservative movement is not actually conservative. We can discuss conservatism as an ideology or we can say that the movement is as it does. I'd also recommend putting aside any "sides" (the "as a leftist" thing is out of a place in a serious attempt to clarify views and understand reality--don't think as a propagandist; think as someone who just wants the truth). Note that you said, "No one in their right mind thinks the right in America have anything to do with maniacal, totalitarian, authoritarian, theocratic, collectivist regimes." Most of the right in America disagrees with that.
