Interesting although redundant; modern "conservatism/rightism" has always been a loose coalition of traditionalists, libertarians, and anti-communists. Getting agreement among conservatives is "herding wildcats" as someone once said. The lefties stay in goosestep much more effectively.
Yes, and nowhere better illustrated than the original "National Review" in its early glory days of the 50s and 60s. Attitudes as different as those of Russell Kirk, James Burnham and William Rusher, to name just three, managed to keep moving in the same general direction, despite differing priorities. To be an effective political force, that kind of coalition has to hold. Conservatism is not widespread enough to withstand a lot of fragmentation.
One thing that seems to me a bit different from the Conservatism of yesteryear is a populist element that normally shows up in the Democratic Party -- an anti-business undertone, a suspicion of "getting ahead" that typically is part of the Left. This is a minority strain, to be sure, but I just don't recall it being part of the MCM previously.
I think the use of "elitist" as a pejorative term is a relatively recent development. In fact in the 50s 60s, it was typically people on the Right who were tagged as elitists. And most of them took it as a compliment.