Conservativism as unitary

There is some discussion in the comments of Conservativism as a set of movements, all of which are in opposition to progressivism, rather than a core position.  Furthermore, it is argued that the groups only barely tolerate one another, and wouldn't except for the progressive threat.

FWIW, I think Moldbug may agree with the above: There are 2 positions: pro-progressive, and anti-.
  Two arguments against the commentariat. 

1. Congress is well-modeled as a 1-dimensional system.  If you assume that there are only 2 dimensions, left and right, and you place each senator along the left-right axis, and then, at random, you tell me about a vote ONLY what the split was, and whether it was left-leaning or right leaning, then it is very likely that I can list every single person who voted for and against it.  To the extent that this is true, then at least the senate does not have fiscal, religious, and neo-conservatives.  It has Republicans.
2. Your mama was right.  Who you hang with matters.  People are social animals, not rational animals.  If you spend your time with cannibals, your attitude towards cannibalism will become less anti-.  If you spend time in California, you become more liberal, and not just due to brain damage from the smog.  Ditto any other position.  Since fiscal, social, and neo-conservatives all sit in the same big tent, their attitudes come to resemble those of one another.  Hence, one should expect that to the extent that conservatives unite under the Republican banner, they should come to resemble one another.  The fiscal conservatives should grow more socially conservative, the social conservatives should grow more fiscally conservative, and both groups should become more fond of American power projection due to the neocon influence.  .