No, I disagree. You're suggesting that there's no reasonable line of thought that would allow tradeoffs in favor of market economics, low taxes, and deregulation to make sense. If you believe that, then you're the one cargo culting here. Politics is a question of wise tradeoffs, and it's perfectly reasonable and acceptable for people to draw different conclusions about where the tradeoffs should fall.
Conservatives are not anarchists and, generally speaking, can be convinced that government intervention is warranted in many instances, especially when that regulation is needed to keep the market free and fair.
I've found the connecting apolitical issue between conservatives and liberals is that nobody seems to think it's ok for those in positions of privilege and power to exploit those who are less fortunate.
Instead of trying to come to agreement on the solution to this dilemma (which is where the major rift is) I instead focus on agreeing on the perpetrators and the offences - which is an easier thing to come to a consensus on.
The next agreement is that what is most favorable for the exploitative party is that nothing changes and they get to continue doing whatever they have been.
I think that's what needs to happen. The abusers need to be constrained by a fear of a conservative or liberal or other style response to abuse ... any of them rising and being effective. Right now they can bank on everyone arguing over it and continue doing whatever they want.
Conservatives are not anarchists and, generally speaking, can be convinced that government intervention is warranted in many instances, especially when that regulation is needed to keep the market free and fair.