Usually a conservative who uses a religious case or justification for why the government must pass legislation (or engage in international conflicts, such as the "War on Drugs") in order to play "moral police" with the citizenry or world.
Such conservatives' self-described credentials as "conservative" are often questioned or sometimes rejected by fiscal conservatives and right-libertarians (including the Grover Norquist anti-tax types) because of such programs take up fiscal resources for potentially never-ending or unwinnable wars. Of course, when culture wars are being fought both in the US and abroad by non-government entities (such as churches), the fiscal conservatives and libertarians are often quiet and compliant for as long as *government* money is not being directed to such wars; the richer of the BGSCs (e.g., Pat Robertson) have free license to carry out such wars.
1. Republicans gain control based on promises of limited government.
2. We get a few years of somewhat limited government, especially if the president is a Democrat.
3. We then watch the biggest statists in America -- big government social conservatives -- demand that the federal government "do something" about every perceived social ill in America.
4. We then watch the GOP respond to social con threats by becoming 100% statist. Every time the GOP gains ascendancy, it eventually decides it ought to use the power of the federal government to force "conservative" (in quotes because big government is never conservative) goals. It assumes that other conservatives will just toe the line (like the OP suggests).
5. Voters then kick the GOP out of power.
6. We then watch the GOP at least pretend to believe in small government (many in the coalition will simply wish to limit power of Dems, thus forming an accidental coalition).
-- Rich Muny, BigGovernment.com (Breitbart-owned outlet)