It is as difficult to identify the foundation on which the success of Trump stands as it is to quantify it. He is obviously a "national" conservative in the sense of holding the renown of the country his driving concern. Most scholars would recognize him as a national conservative, one of the few things on which Trump agrees with them.
His efforts at fiscal and social conservatism, although much advertised, do not bear careful inspection. His economic "success" is not commensurate with the national debt incurred in maintaining it's illusion. One thing especially, a "tariff" is not a sound idea according to modern economic theory.
To understand what a tariff does, consider two hypothetical cities 'A' and 'B' at some large distance from each other. For reasons of climate, soil, and other factors city 'A' and surroundings grow apples at less cost and better taste than city 'B' and surroundings do. What happens if city 'B' decides to raise its role in that apple market by imposing a tariff on apples produced outside it? Who benefits? The growers in city 'B' benefit by getting some buyers away from competitors by reducing the former price advantage. The government of city 'B' benefits by a small increase in revenue. No one else in city 'B' or elsewhere benefits.
In the long run however no one at all benefits. Investors in city 'B' continue to invest in apples when the investor's capital and labor would be better used in some other endeavor. Economists call that an "inefficient" use of resources. Although the "free market" is not perfect, it does allocate resources better than tariffs. Trump followers who believe he is a good representative of capitalism are mistaken in this regard.
Another reason jobs might go to a distant locality has nothing to do with the allocation of resources. If city 'B' raises wages and prices together the buying power of wage earners might stay the same. Things cost more, but workers can still afford them and things can appear better. What once cost $10 now costs $50 but wages are five times higher as well and there is no real change in buying power. That does not always mean things are actually better. It could mean inflation has occurred, that the improvement in quality is not entirely meaningful. It becomes popular to hire workers in countries whose currency is not inflated for $10 per hour rather than $50.
Inflation can also cause people to want to immigrate if it means they can send some of the money they earn back to relatives in an economy with less inflation. This might help explain why illegal immigration increased during the Trump administration.
Notice these problems exist in addition to the common complaint that tariffs lead to other countries imposing tariffs as well.
Arguments over what the Constitution says about marriage or abortion have been prolonged, bitter and historic despite the fact the Constitution says nothing at all about either. Neither scientist nor economist, Trump is also not a theologian. Whatever the term "evangelical" is suppose to mean it remains a great wonder what religion if any Trump characterizes or represents. Perhaps that should be what religion he misrepresents, since it will likely be impossible to impose any religion or religious value by an "interpretation" of the Constitution. Rather it will likely first be necessary to change the hearts and minds of vast numbers of people so that they agree to necessary definitions of life and obligation and amend the Constitution accordingly. It should help dramatically to enhance the appreciation of religious values by telling the truth in public schools in a convincing manner about what science can or cannot do.
Given that Trump has sorely disappointed fiscal and social conservatives, as detailed here, the question becomes what national conservatives expect him to do for the country. Is it the man or his principles they believe they should promote? What principles? If he is silent on the futility of expecting short, lifeless RNA chains to suddenly dance themselves to life against the laws of physics, why is that? Is he hoping Islam takes the credit for understanding that first?
Why do people who agree with Trump call their political opponents "liberals"? The term they might find better fits many of their opponents, though certainly not all, is "leftists." The meanings of "liberal" and "leftist" have significant differences. Using the two cities model, suppose city 'A' has an orchestra and city 'B' does not. City 'A' might then be described as more liberal. That has nothing to do with the leftist idea of challenging any standing tradition. Having a zoo or a library might also be considered "liberal" with no hint of leftism or expansive government.
If this country indeed has principles, why do voters choose Trump to represent them? Couldn't most men or women in either party present a much better picture of the country? Does he represent capitalism well, or is he more like the caricature of a capitalist that led to the communist revolution in the first place?