Yeah, so you fault me for not covering everything under the sun in a single article. My worldview is laid out in hundreds upon hundreds of articles, going back to 2011, most of which are on my blog. In other articles, I go into detail on George Will and on Julius Evola (links below), and I have an upcoming article (already written) on Burke's moderate conservatism.
There's no strawman here, just a division of labour.
Yes, I conflate conservatism and libertarianism in this article, because both are confused about the meaning of "liberty."
Yes, conservatives and liberals disagree about what liberty entails. The conservatives are wrong, the liberals are right. Do you know how I know that? Because personal liberty was a revolutionary, progressive concept in early modernity, and the modern conservatives represent a reactionary stance against the concept.
The conservative's preference is for illiberal monarchies, theocracies, and dominance hierarchies in which there's no such thing as the human right of personal liberty, where rights are derived from natural differences and from patriarchal religious texts.
So yeah, when you follow the conservative's logic and look at what her policies entail, you discover her rhetorical praise of liberty is superficial at best.
Your parting point of pragmatism, that we have to work with these folks, is irrelevant. Strategies of social interaction have nothing to do with whether the conservative's concept of liberty is coherent.
I agree, though, that telling the unvarnished truth may be counterproductive in a political context, especially when a third of your population (the Trump supporters) are certifiable.