Njoya, “Natural Law Principles in the Conservative Tradition”

Wanjiru Njoya, “Natural Law Principles in the Conservative Tradition,” Mises Wire (10/13/2026).

Gemini summary

The Conservative Ideological Divide: The article opens by examining a modern split among conservatives (using Texas politics as an example) between “Heritage Republicans”—who believe nations are historically rooted communities tied to time and place—and “Creedal Republicans,” who believe a nation is defined by abstract shared ideas and civil rights consensus.

The Problem with “Liberal Conservatism”: The author notes that many modern “liberal conservatives” have drifted so far toward political compromise and consensus-driven policies that they have become ideologically aligned with progressives and even socialists.

Edmund Burke and Natural Law: To define true conservatism, the author looks to the philosophy of Edmund Burke (widely considered the father of conservatism). Scholars like Peter Stanlis have demonstrated that Burke’s political framework relies heavily on classical and scholastic Natural Law rather than pure utilitarianism or abstract metaphysics.

True Liberty vs. Arbitrary Power: Under a Burkean and Aristotelian natural law framework, human beings are social animals whose freedom is bounded by community, tradition, and eternal laws of right and wrong. True liberty is “social freedom,” distinct from the selfish, isolated individualism that allows for the exercise of arbitrary power or the destruction of a nation’s historic culture and character.

Conclusion: The article concludes that true conservatism cannot separate itself from natural law principles. Consequently, political actions that tear down a people’s heritage, traditions, and national character cannot accurately be described as conservative.

Wanjiru Njoya, “Natural Law Principles in the Conservative Tradition,” Mises Wire (10/13/2026)

Texas Republicans recently became embroiled in a dispute between two factions that we could call, for purposes of exposition, the “Heritage Texans” and the “Creedal Texans.”

Heritage Republicans believe that a nation is constituted by a specific and identifiable people who are historically rooted in a place over time, while Creedal Republicans believe in a concept they call “the idea of Texas.” Their idea of Texas involves hard work, love of football, and the savoir-faire to say, “Hook ‘em Horns.” To the Creedals, anyone from anywhere in the world who embraces this idea is as much a Texan as anyone whose ancestors rode with the Texas cavalry in 1861.

Which of these factions represents true conservatism? What is real conservatism, anyway, in a situation where different sides of an allegedly conservative party are unable to agree on such a fundamental issue?

Creedal Republicans believe that conservative values entail upholding the civil rights laws that were introduced by the Radical Republicans in the post-bellum reconstruction era. The political consensus today, as they see it, is based on what they call “our shared values.” These values are said to be enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, with which, it is further assumed, we all agree. Anyone who dissents from that is typically denounced as “racist.”

The fact that their political opponents agree with them on this issue does not strike the Creedals as troubling, because many of them are, in any case, devotees of political compromise. They seek the middle ground between opposing parties and favor issues on which the Uniparty can stand united. But when the strongest supporters of a conservative faction are socialists, questions must be raised about the coherence of their political ideology.

Read more>>

Related

• Jeff Deist, “For a New Libertarian,” Mises Wire, July 28, 2017 (talk delivered at Mises University 2017). Argues that liberty must comport with human nature (no “new man”) and that libertarians should embrace rather than reject civil society—family, religion, tradition, and culture—as the organic means of organizing life without the state. Notes that a freer society would likely be more culturally conservative.
• Jeff Deist, “Rothbard and the Paleo Right,” Property and Freedom Journal, September 27, 2026. Examines Rothbard’s paleo/populist turn, including his emphasis on bourgeois cultural norms, organic nationhood, cohesion, and the necessity of engaging culture wars rather than treating politics as purely abstract.
• Jeff Deist, “Appreciating Rothbard’s Political Genius,” in Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, edited by Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Houston: Papinian Press and Property and Freedom Society, 2026). Highlights Rothbard’s strategy of combining anti-statist natural-law libertarianism with cultural conservatism’s focus on family, faith, law and order, and American traditions; stresses that politics is downstream from culture.
• Jeff Deist (interviewed by Matthew Geiger), “America’s Culture with Jeff Deist,” Menger Institute Podcast #12, August 1, 2026. Insists culture and economics are inseparable, that people’s political views flow from culture, and that culture wars are essential; links monetary and economic decline to cultural degradation and calls for recovering more traditional culture.
• Jeff Deist, “The 2016 Election’s Silver Lining,” Mises Wire, November 7, 2016 (excerpt from the Dallas–Ft. Worth Mises Circle, November 5, 2016). Criticizes the libertarian habit of appearing hostile to family, religion, tradition, and community, and calls for a message that is welcoming toward these institutions of civil society rather than at war with culture.