In theory those should all be the same thing. It is often heard of a "three legged stool" that won't stand without all three legs.
In practice strong differences arise because there has been a falling away from, and a misunderstanding of, traditions.
Donald Trump tended to favor "national" conservatism, the standing of the country in the world, and the strength of the military. He was not able to reduce the rapid climb of the national debt that began in 1979. His connection with social values depended on unusually poorly disciplined "religious" people with little or no traditions that have delighted opponents of religion who want to see religion represented by its most embarrassing examples. Some of his followers have resorted to approaches to the reduction of the abortion rate that are not improved over those that failed.
Because so many Trump followers seemed to fear no god themselves, nor expect anyone else to fear one, their concept of a "god" has been interpreted perhaps very unfairly as "God comes from the barrel of a gun." That is noticeably similar to the Maoist saying "Power comes from the barrel of a gun."
The sort of beginners whose main concern is membership in some group rather than the standards and practices of that group were especially drawn to Trump. They were neither theologians, economists, nor diplomats.
The identity of one party can often be formed in reaction to the other party. The Democratic Party, which began as a check on the overreach of government, has become a force of government itself. It has convinced itself that its overreach is benign. It has not convinced others. Lately it welcomes some social revolutionaries and economic revolutionaries. Biden successfully downplayed those ideas or might have lost to Trump.
Social and economic revolutionaries of course are very alarming to conservatives. While that did unite them in the purpose of voting Republican, it did not unite them on specific policies. Thus it was less successful.
Unity in the Republican Party will require a better developed sense of social and economic ideals and the way to promote them with the least government involvement.
There are plenty of people in both parties with a good sense of politics, religion, science and art. What has happened though it that the novices whose abecedarian notions of religion and science are not well received in those fields turn to politics where their qualifications will not be questioned. Both parties are now flooded with such people.
If the Republican Party is able to learn from the loss of Trump that it needs to balance itself in a more scholarly way it can remain a robust presence in politics. Failing that it will cease to be relevant.