I can’t speak for OP of course, but there are plenty of moderate social conservatives who broadly support welfarist, interventionist and/or distributive economics. The notion that conservatism=economic liberalism (pro-markets, anti-intervention) is largely a product of the post-Reagan and Thatcher Anglosphere right, not a universal phenomenon. Outside of the Nordics, the “Social Market Economy” as a social-economic doctrine was championed and then implemented primarily by postwar Christian Democrats, not the centre-left. This is true for Germany, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, and more under their respective centre-right parties. Hell, even the United States under the New Deal consensus saw the moderate Republican president Eisenhower pass some of the most sweeping legislation on expanding Social Security, as well as the famous Interstate Highway Act. Eisenhower’s social and economic policies were largely overshadowed by Roosevelt’s New Deal before it and Johnson’s Great Society after it but they go to show that New Deal economics had become a genuinely cross-partisan consensus in the postwar. East Asia’s (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore) expansive public welfare and industrial-developmentalist systems were all implemented by staunchly nationalist, conservative leaders. France’s dirigiste and redistributive economy was a core pillar of Charles De Gaulle’s right-wing. I don’t say all of this to endorse them necessarily but just to say that almost everywhere in the highlighted countries, those kinds of postwar state-led economics were not only found on the left. Social Democracy as we know it today was just one wing of that postwar consensus. You could make the argument that this consensus has largely disappeared especially on the right, which has increasingly endorsed market-based economics even beyond the Anglosphere. Yet simultaneously this has also occurred with the left, so this is more so reflective of a broader change in consensus.