The problem with conventional approaches to the left-right political spectrum is that they either fail to define the alternatives in question, or proceed to define them in terms of non-essentials.
One common approach, for instance, fails to specify the precise nature of either side, yet proceeds to place communism, socialism, and modern “liberalism” on (or toward) the left—and fascism, conservatism, and capitalism on (or toward) the right.
This makes no sense, at least in terms of the right. Capitalism—the social system of individual rights, property rights, and personal liberty—has nothing in common with conservatism or fascism. Take them in turn.
Source: Political “Left” and “Right” Properly Defined – The Objective Standard
Great analysis Craig. While your breakdown is a “pure” one in context of history and social economics, there are many of us that use the modern label “conservative” do not subscribe to litmus tests for religious or social norms/values; yet value individual rights, private property and free-markets without violation or limits. The problem being, there are too few labels with meaning to chose from and the remainder are misunderstood or result in inappropriate pigeon-holing. My point is, that “conservatives” are not nearly as homogeneous and narrowly defined as you imply. That said, if we could all agree on your ideal nomenclature, I would not have a quarrel with it at all.