Your post highlights an eternal central problem in debating politics. The language we use to define different groups has always been muddy as hell. What you are using as "conservative", for example, is sometimes described as "socially conservative". But there are people in my family who find that use of the word "conservative" offensive, because they believe conservatism is about economics, thinking social conservatives to be dupes of authoritarians. Because these terms are so frustratingly confused, the entire debate has splintered along a thousand different fractures with everyone yelling at everyone else over which ever is our particular pet peeve.

For myself, I find the most useful term (though far from perfect) to be Libertarian. I would like to have it be even more specific, as Individual Libertarian, stressing that individuals have rights that corporations DO NOT. The first and foremost right is individual personal freedom (liberty), which can be limited only after the individual demonstrates serious cause to do so (i.e. abuses the freedom of his/her neighbors). It is this fundamental natural state of individual freedom that is under direct assault by today's elite class, and that is the first priority of all conversation for me. The other pieces must all be aligned with that. This was the purpose of the Bill of Rights, now lying burning in the garbage.

Again, though, the problem is that words are very easily misused (quite intentionally, by charismatic rhetoricians), and the resulting confusion always provides politicians opportunities to abuse others for personal gain. This is the expertise of those who make their living at the public teat.