According to dictionary.com, being ideologically "liberal" means being receptive to new ideas and uninvested in traditional values. By contrast then, conservatism would be resistance to new ideas and adherance to traditional values. The difficulty arises when we have to ask "which values? whose traditions?" E.g., current "conservatism" in America is not interested in defending the status quo traditions of progressive institutions; rather, our current "conservatism" is a reactionary movement to nullify the sociopolitical changes of the last century or so. The radicalism of today's conservatism can be measured by how far back a given conservative wants to turn the calendar. Why stop at FDR's socialist programs and the child-rights won by unionism? Why not turn the clock of social progress back to 1820? or to the 1600s? the 1200s? pre-Diaspora Judea?
So we really need some more useful and honest terminology to describe current politics. In theory, the "Tea" Party pet ideologies, smaller government and freer markets, are technically "classical liberal" and "neoliberal", respectively. So why did the "Tea" Party attract so many arch conservative types, best exemplified by their two most visible female bobblehead charismatics, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann? Because "smaller government" has become second-degree code for "states rights", which in turn was always code for unrestrained local despotism.
I stop short at calling "classical liberalism" third-degree code for racial supremacism; according to Wikipedia, classical liberalism is also the ideology of rule of law, constitutionalism, due process, and civil liberty, all of which are in direct opposition to despotism. This only highlights the problem that "limited government" is a double-edged sword. Overpowered government implies a heirarchical tyranny of governors; underpowered government implies an anarchical tyranny of local crime and trade bosses. So instead of beating the drum of "smaller government" I'd have a lot more faith in politicians who proclaim a dedication to "right-sizing" government.
Maybe it's a mistake for me to identify with leftism (originally, revolutionary sympathies, later working-class/middle-class values). Maybe my ideology would be better summarized as "liberal moderation" or "populism".