I continue to hear some of these people described as "conservatives". They are not conservatives. They are right-wing radicals. Surely no one ever thought that "radical" as a label belongs only to the left?
There is such a thing as a Reasonable Conservative; we used to have 'em, though today's Republican party would probably call Eisenhower a "socialist" and Nixon (who created a lot of national parks) a "land grabber". (Please note, I'm not calling Nixon a reasonable conservative, only trying to illustrate how radicalised the current Republican Party has become, how far it has shifted in a few decades.)
Starting with the Chicago School neoliberal backlash against Keynesian economics and the Tea Party subculture -- and vastly amplified by social media -- for the last 40 years there has been a slowly intensifying right-wing insurgency in the US (and in several other countries around the world). Some of the people promoting this have taken their efforts to the international stage as well (like Steve Bannon, or the Mercer family money behind Cambridge Analytica and other far-right projects).
The Trumpista Republicans and their motley Qanon-inflected base are not conservatives. They might be called revanchists, since the main focus of their ideology is nostalgia and "restoration" of a notional Golden Age. Most of them are dues-paying anti-feminists, anti-immigrationists, nativists, homophobes, racists, anti-taxers, etc.; and this may also be true of conservatives, but there is one important difference. Conservatives within any political system believe in the system itself. Their conservatism is a cautious (and privileged) take on the pace and breadth of changes in the system. They do not try, as the MAGA mob did in DC last week, to tear the system itself down.
Indi (Medium writer worth looking up) said it pretty clearly in a recent post: while the Democrats are still trying to win the card game, the Republicans are now trying to flip the table. That is what makes them radicals, not conservatives. And that is why they need to be on the radar of the security apparatus, which in the final analysis exists precisely to prevent that table from being flipped over: to preserve the institutions of the society regardless of which party achieves ephemeral power in office.