Conserving doesn’t mean reducing, it means protecting what already exists. Restricting access to birth control, for example, I would not call politically conservative.

Republicans have, at different points in time, been fairly forward leaning in their own way. Have a google of progressive policies implemented by republicans.

Social conservatism is more akin to what you are describing rather than the conservative political movement (and has a large section of the republicans in its sway at the moment). The thing they are trying to protect is their own personal moral view of the world and in so doing they are willing to not conserve the current political system to achieve this goal.

For me political conservatives recognise the value of many of our establishments and don’t want to see radical, untested, change risk what we have.

Progressives want to see us improve our systems, institutions, and cultural norms. Laudable goals, however the goals and implementation approaches can produce results that diminish, rather than enhance, what we already have.

Socially conservative values, to me, are another kettle of fish. I know socially progressive conservatives and socially regressive progressives.

Libertarianism is also a separate, cross over, category for me. How power is shared between individuals and government is a critical foundation for how we function and can once again be adopted by politically conservative or progressive ideas.

Disclaimers:

Not American, Libertarian leaning Socially progressive Somewhere between a political conservative and a political progressive

I think what is left out these days is nuance and a judgement of individual actions. Hamas is a horror show, hands down. Israel has a horrific expansionist agenda. It’s not clean and neat. We don’t need to cheer a side on all occasions. Let’s condemn atrocities and organisations with atrocious actions actions (Hamas and Israel) and push for fair and equitable outcomes for the innocent citizens on both sides.

I understand your point, however I think it misses a key element. This land was owned and occupied by our first nations peoples for 65k years.

The British decided to take it over a few hundred years ago, a pretty rough decision for first nations peoples. In fact they were only recognised as real people with a right to vote in 1967.

We can’t reverse that bad decision now, each of us are now Australian. Yet no other group of peoples were the victim of our new country formation. Having recognition in the constitution, and a protected voice for national decisions that affect them seems reasonable.

No other group, culture, or religion has this relationship with our government. A voice for any other group wouldn’t make sense. It’s not a cultural voice - it’s a political one for the nations we forced from power.

Three counter points:

1. Where state sanctioned killing is introduced violent crime and homicide typically rise afterwards. Potentially because society is saying its ok to kill someone if they really deserve it and your sure.
2. It is near impossible to be 100% certain of someone’s guilt. Even with confessions. They could be protecting someone or simply not of right mind. If the state makes a mistake it is permanent and is murder in my opinion.
3. Pricing has to take into account the legal costs a a printed with being as sure as possible etc. Even then there are cases of wrongful execution.