I don't really credit what conservatives say they believe because modern conservatism is a grift. As you say, the more viable form of conservativism is classical liberalism, so that's Orwellian gamesmanship with words. Those "conservatives" are just liberals. Why, then, do they call themselves conservatives?
I laid out my take on conservatism vs liberalism, in a long series of articles. For me the crux of the conflict is bestial social Darwinism vs secular humanism. For centuries, the former effectively reigned supreme (entailing monarchy, feudalism, patriarchy, imperialism, slavery, and stagnation), and in so far as they disagree with the humanism that's at the core of modern liberalism, conservative policies entail a return to the ancient or medieval status quos, regardless of the rhetorical obfuscations.
So I'm more interested in the systematic effects of conservative policies than in the conservative's justifications. The core of conservative ideology can then be deduced from those effects, which allows us to bypass the justifications that are likely sophistical.
I summarize this in the article below, which also links to most of the others in the series. And see the second article for more on the semantic shenanigans (George Will on old world conservativism vs classical liberalism/conservatism).
I should add, though, that in so far as "conservatism" is a misnomer for cultural pessimism, my writings have some "conservative" tendencies since I'm ambivalent about progress. That may be what you're getting at.
