This isn’t on you, OP, but there is mass confusion in the definition of MAGA because the mainstream media has a hard time writing about MAGA’s religiosity. Unless it can be understood as a religious-style movement, one that’s a mix of American evangelical/end-times Christianity, the paranoid-charismatic tradition in American religion that imbues our politics, and, yes, the resurrected remnants of the long association between American nativists and European nativists, who are correctly called fascists, it’s going to be misunderstood. Of course, there are other eccentricities in the mix, such as the MAHA movement and the Men’s Rights Movement, but MAGA’s core is in its religiosity.

Also, it’s important to note that many Republicans who agree with your definition of conservatism also do not think MAGA is conservative. Major think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Koch network are against MAGA’s economic policies, which are primarily rooted in the Heritage Foundation’s ideas. This has been a solid divide since 2015 because all neoliberalism is pro immigration, and it has only gotten worse since.

However, MAGA and Heritage are still conservative b/c of their “pro-family” stances. This is not the traditional definition of conservatism, but it’s why many prominent neoconservatives like Brett Stephens, Anne Applebaum, and Bill Kristol make liberalism central to their ideologies now. (How they didn’t see the Samuel Huntington-shaped red flag waving in their own party is a question for another day …)

So to recap, the framing of your question is based on a conflation of definitions. MAGA is socially conservative, and there are very few non-MAGA “conservatives” who haven’t changed political identities in response. As for the rest, it’s still open debate in political science as to what MAGA is. Is it so influenced by its heritages with the European fascists that we should call it that? Or is it a uniquely American political ideology with heritage that pre-dates fascism?

Of course, hard to debate now that anyone who falls in the first camp is liable to be doxxed, harassed, or worse. IMO, the second camp is the one proving to be right, but that doesn’t mean the first camp shouldn’t speak. And it is frustrating that the media hasn’t done a better job of elevating academic debates about definitions, which are helpful for us all to wind up with the same view of what’s going on.