No, because that's what it is. Too bad you can't recognize Socialism and Marxism relabeled either...
As someone who is actually on a first-name basis with a number of REAL Marxists, I am forced to call bullshit. Marxism is a very specific and complicated ideology with a lot of well-defined literature behind it. It is such a virulent and mind-warping worldview that it is basically impossible to BE a Marxist without bragging about it. Unless you're just faking it to impress some cute girl (I know a few of those too).
Socialism, also, is a very specific ideology, one whose definition you are equally unfamiliar with. A simple de-prioritization of individual negative rights is not "socialism," nor do progressives universally advocate democratic control of a nation's economy (which is the fundamental tenent OF socialism).
Sure they can -- only Socialism and Marxism have proven over and over again THEY are not the better way as they've failed everywhere they have been implimented.
That's all well and good... unfortunately you haven't described what conservatives would advocate INSTEAD of Socialism or Marxism or any other conceivable system that would deliver the kinds of social/political/economic progress advocated by progressives.
Which is my overall point: conservatives have a long list of "Don'ts", which they believe may, individually or in combination, destroy the universe. They advocate very little POSITIVE action, except to step away from action of any kind and allow nature/humanity/industry/Jesus/the invisible hand to run its course. Thus we have the dichotomy between "Do nothing, and things will get better" and "Do something, so things will get better."
You've got a skewed perception of Conservatism.
Equal rights (the subject of LTBYLB) are not a political issue -- they are a human rights issue -- which is a different thing altogether.
And conservatives have historically been on
which side of the equal rights issue?
And may I remind you, it was Democrats who resisted equal rights for blacks and a REPUBLICAN who liberated them.
Indeed. At a time when Democrats (or "Dixiecrats" as they were known to black people at the time) pandered to the conservative movement which was, at the time, largely indistinguishable from the segregationist movement. The ideological switch--if you could even call it that--came after the Civil Rights movement finally triumphed and Republicans were able to maintain power by sweeping up votes of angry white southerners who felt they'd been betrayed by the Democrats. This, in the late 70s and early 80s, was embodied in the infamous "Southern Strategy." Who, after all, do you think Reagan was talking to when he told that fable about Wellfare Queens?
But I digress. The conservative movement is not defined--historically or presently--as advocating or even welcoming any kind of social change. The trend has always been, not just in America but in every modern society on Earth, towards either a suspension of social progress and "keep things the way they are," or a regression of social progress and "keep things the way they WERE" on the assumption that anything new or untried will necessarily fail. It is indeed the one thing all conservatives DO have in common, even among different social political and religious backgrounds. That Star Trek appeals to such people is hardly amazing; that conservatives could ever claim Star Trek is indicative of conservative thinking is just plain
absurd.
Which basically means you want them to be too dishonest and cowardly to speak their minds, for fear that someone might dislike it, and that it could reflect badly on the success of their next movie/TV show/whatever. 
