Lol.First there are two types of conservatism . Fiscal and social. Truth be told those could be broken down even further. For example I am fiscally conservative at the federal level because I believe in the Constitutional limitations of federal government . I am a little less fiscally conservative at the state level as someone would have to take back over some of the functions the feds have usurped from the states. That would require some money and spending. For example I believe well monitored social programs can be effective at the state level. Yet, I am not a fiscal liberal even at the state level.
Social conservatism to me is about controlling the behaviors of other people, often unnecessarily. For example prohibition or being anti-gay. It's practioners often come off as heartless. . But these days the social liberals are just as controlling. "No free speech in this zone" hate has become a crime and discrimination against males and whites is openly practiced .
The terms mean so many different things to different people as to have become more useful as intended insults than as political descriptions. So I look at a candidate's or person's controllism level. When I do that I find that almost all of Washington is controlling and that "conservative" and "liberal" regimes tend to talk different but "accomplish" the same stuff.
Another way to look at it is "What portion of the BOR's and other freedoms does this candidate support? " Some "cons" are a little weak on things like due process, and can't tell "defense" from "offense" some "libs" are very weak on 2nd Amendment issues and both tend to simply reject state's rights as a matter of course.
Rand Paul is among the few who fully support the BOR's and Constitution as written.