For future reference Conservatism and Liberalism are totally dependent on context. Liberalism 100 years ago meant the exact same thing as Conservatism does now (well, economically speaking).
Generally though the same people who want to go back in time to a "better" version of their country by definition are Conservative, and the whole "Make murca great 'gin" thing definitely suggests they want to be more Conservative. Racism is not necessary but since Race is notoriously vague, and unscientific new "races" are made up all the time when the need arises (such as Judaism — it's a religion not a race, but…).
Those who want to achieve this ideal by force are Fascist (and kicking out all the "illegals, Muslims, and etc" definitely is not peaceful). Fascists also almost always emphasize a "glorious past" and make up grandiose propaganda and stories about it (Italy and Roman Empire, Germany and Porto-Germanic tribes/"Aryans"). Nationalists are sort of an in-between and while unpleasant can be maintained for a good while without giant wars (see all of 1800-1920).
Therefore it could be argued that Trump is ever so slightly encroaching on fascist territory, but the fact that the only part of "glorious past" requirement he meets is a vague "great again" slogan he is not a full-blown Fascist and will likely never be because of the political climate in the US.
And just to be fair, on the other side is liberals, who say that the best society is one that looks forward. Inclusiveness has not generally been a great feature of past societies, so generally acceptance of other cultures and subcultures is seen as liberal. Also, government-sponsored altruism is also a relatively new idea so support for Government programs for the poor are also seen as more liberal-leaning. There are a bunch of others but this is the general sense today.
Those who want to achieve this by force are Communists, and tend to talk about total equality and propaganda about overthrowing the wealthy. They like to quote pseudo-scientific intellectuals about the inevitable struggles between the "rich and the poor" (Karl Marx being a famous example — sociology has famously been unable to confirm any of his theories). The in-between analogies are Socialists, who want to help people achieve equality but not force it by giving them essentials and near-essentials for free in exchange for a higher tax rate. These tend to be a little more sustainable and popular with those with experience in democratic Socialism, but are very difficult to convince others of (hence the whole Obamacare debacle while UK refuses to get rid of the NHS). However the analogy of unsustainable Socialism would be like Venezuela where reality is thrown away for valid "ideals" such as absolute free Healthcare and Education without tax increases and the books can't realistically be balanced.
Communists and Fascists tend to be so extreme they both have extremely high rates of dictatorships, human rights abuses, political prisoners etc (although Communists imprison based on Class while Fascists imprison based on Race).