Sure, that's a relevant distinction. I'd say, then, that conservatives blur the lines between facts and values or between descriptions and prescriptions, by committing the naturalistic fallacy. Conservatism reduces to social Darwinism, as I show in my long series on the subject, and that's to say that conservatives identify the facts or the natural probabilities (such as of a minority of elites ruling over the masses) with how things ought to be. There's no argument there but just rank prejudice and force. Conservatives fallaciously imply that the facts of nature are already good and proper, so progress, or the humanistic project of transcending nature is bad. I know the conservative's religious rhetoric entails the opposite of this social Darwinism, but that rhetoric is just a red herring, given conservatives' policies and collective behaviour.