The contemporary landscape of American conservatism, particularly as it manifests in the high-velocity ecosystem of digital media, is currently undergoing a profound and largely unacknowledged philosophical schizophrenia. On the surface, the movement appears united by a shared lexicon of "freedom," "tradition," "anti-wokeness," and "patriotism." Yet, beneath this veneer of political solidarity lies a deep, tectonic fracture concerning the very nature of human agency and the definition of liberty itself.

This fracture is best understood through the lens of Natural Law, which asserts that the very concept of freedom has to be joined to truth and responsibility. To summarize the perspective of Natural Law, the moral life is simply a matter of living well in everything we do. This is why natural law thinkers do not draw sharp distinctions between matters of ethics and matters of practicality; ethics cause one to live well in all aspects of life.[1] In this view, freedom and goodness coincide, because to be truly free is to succeed in being who we are according to our nature.

The call of virtue, which is the human vocation, is to live according to the way we were created to function according to our design.[2] However, if we make decisions by directing our faculties and functions to an end that is not their proper end, we are using them in a perverse or disordered way. This distinction provides the necessary diagnostic tool to understand why the "New Right" often sounds like a chaotic collision of moral traditionalists and libertine anarchists.

The Two Freedoms: Indifference vs. Excellence

To understand a YouTube clip of Benny Johnson or a podcast transcript of Joe Rogan, one must first understand the medieval lecture halls where the definitions of "freedom" were first contested. The current "Culture War" is, in many respects, a re-litigation of the debate between William of Ockham and Thomas Aquinas.

Voluntaristic Freedom (Freedom of Indifference) Originating in the nominalist philosophy of the 14th century, specifically with William of Ockham, this view defines freedom as the raw, neutral power of the Will to choose between contraries. Natural law stands in stark contrast to this definition. For instance, freedom according to Ockham is to have the choice between options without constraint, either internal or external.[3] In our modern context, this idea is often expressed simply as the freedom of self-expression.

• Implication for Law: In this view, law (whether divine or civil) is an external imposition—a restriction on freedom. Freedom ends where law begins. Therefore, to be maximally free is to be minimally governed.
   
• Modern Avatar: This is the freedom of the Libertarian and the classical Liberal. It is the freedom of "I can do whatever I want as long as I don't hurt you."

Freedom for Excellence (Freedom for Virtue) Rooted in the teleological realism of Aristotle and Aquinas, Natural Law posits that the ability to make a free choice comes with a purpose. We must not simply consider what someone desires or wants to do but also what they should want. If we value "freedom" as something good in and of itself, we have lost sight of what freedom is for.[4] The whole point of human autonomy and freedom is not to pursue whatever we want, but instead, it is the freedom to pursue solely those ends that are in accordance with what fulfills our human nature and thus leads to human flourishing.

• Implication for Law: In this view, moral law is not a constraint but a grammar. Just as grammatical rules allow one to speak poetry (rather than gibberish), moral laws allow one to live a human life.
   
• Modern Avatar: This is the freedom of the Traditionalist, the Religious Conservative, and the Virtue Ethicist.

The tension in the conservative influencer sphere arises because the ends are often drawn from Freedom for Excellence (family, faith, biological reality), but the means are drawn from Voluntaristic Freedom (the absolute right to say whatever one wants, the rejection of "tone policing," the celebration of the "unbound" man).

Case Study I: Tucker Carlson and the Perverted Faculty of Speech

As humans, our actions should be directed by reason. The purpose of our actions should be to pursue the good, so in every action that is disordered (used towards an end that it was not designed for or is contrary to), it not only perverts that function or faculty but it also perverts our own faculty of reason and rationality.[5]

This principle is starkly violated in the interaction between Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan regarding the use of the slur "faggot."

• The Incident: In a widely circulated interview, Carlson pressed Morgan on his refusal to use the word "faggot" during a discussion about the word's usage. Morgan refused, citing a desire not to be "gratuitously offensive."
   
• The Voluntaristic Frame: Carlson did not frame Morgan’s refusal as a virtue. Instead, he framed it as fear. Carlson accused Morgan of being "afraid" of the mob. For Carlson, the act of saying the forbidden word becomes a sacrament of Voluntaristic Freedom—demonstrating that the speaker is "indifferent" to social constraint.

However, this is to use the faculty of speech in an unfitting manner given its intended and proper purpose according to its design. As philosopher Tim Hsiao states, "A faculty is a goal-directed power that seeks to bring about some effect, and so the object toward which some power is directed is befitting if it is able to receive the type of effect that the power seeks to impart."[6] Using a slur to prove one is not "owned" by the Left is a disordered use of language. It perverts the function of communication (truth and charity) for the sake of power. In Carlson’s framework, the moral dimension collapses into a power dimension: there are only those strong enough to speak and those too weak to dare.

It’s crucial to emphasize that the "lower parts" of a living organism are hierarchically subordinated to the "higher parts" and ultimately to the welfare of the organism as a whole.[7] When conservatives use the "lower parts" (insults, mockery, the "Freedom of Indifference" to crush an opponent) to achieve the "higher parts" (truth), they risk cruelty. The "Freedom for Excellence" (the desire to help the other see truth) becomes indistinguishable from bullying. One cannot be a "Saint of the Mean Tweets."

Case Study II: The Nihilism of Irony – Nick Fuentes

Nick Fuentes represents the most radical and disturbing manifestation of Voluntaristic Freedom, operating almost entirely within the framework of "Freedom of Indifference" even as he claims to defend traditional Christian order. His rhetoric relies on the absolute detachment of the Will from the Truth (Logos), utilizing irony as a solvent to dissolve moral accountability.

• The "Cookie Monster" Voluntarism: Fuentes famously engaged in Holocaust denial rhetoric by comparing the genocide of six million Jews to "baking cookies" in a Sesame Street analogy. When pressed, he retreated into the fortress of "irony," claiming it was "just a joke." This is the quintessential move of Ockham’s Voluntarism: the speaker refuses to be bound by the reality of his words. The Will is sovereign over Meaning. He asserts the freedom to say the unsayable not because it is true, but because he can.
   
• The "Catholic Taliban" Paradox: Fuentes openly calls for a "Catholic Taliban rule" in America, a phrase that itself is a performative contradiction. He seeks a hyper-legalistic religious order (the ultimate constraint) but advocates for it using the tools of anarchic, transgressive speech (the ultimate lack of constraint). This contradiction reaches its horrific zenith in his defense of "burning women alive." On his show America First, Fuentes stated: "We need to go back to burning women alive. Like when they're convicted of crimes obviously. Not—not random acts of violence. 

But remember that in medieval times I've said this on the show before. When women were witches, what happened to them? They were burned alive. Real phenomenon. And we stopped doing that and then everything went out of control. You know, we all said all that was such a horrible tragedy."[8]

This quote reveals that his "tradition" is not a submission to the Natural Law of charity and justice, but a Voluntaristic desire for dominion. He does not want the "Freedom for Excellence" that leads to human flourishing; he wants the "Freedom of Indifference" to impose his Will upon others, using the guise of "medieval order" to justify sadistic cruelty.

• The Rejection of the "Neighbor": Fuentes navigates the tension between his "Christian" identity and his vitriol by narrowing the definition of "person" or "neighbor." He explicitly states that "perfidious Jews" and others have "no place in Western Civilization." By excluding them from the moral community, he grants himself the Voluntaristic license to treat them not as subjects of charity, but as objects of scorn. Natural Law asserts that the ultimate end of our functions is to serve the flourishing of the community. Fuentes, by contrast, uses his faculties to fracture the community, proving that his "America First" is really "Will First."

Case Study III: The Agony of the Libertarian – Rogan & Pool

The "Secular Libertarians" offer a raw look at what Voluntaristic Freedom feels like when it is actually achieved.

Tim Pool: The Hollow Center Pool frequently cites the maxim: "Without the freedom to offend, freedom of speech ceases to exist." This aligns with Ockham’s view that the power to choose is the good, not the choice itself. But, "If we value 'freedom' as something good in and of itself, we have lost sight of what freedom is there for."[9] Pool’s worldview is flattened; it lacks the teleological drive of Excellence.

Joe Rogan: The Hedonistic Paradox Rogan is a hybrid. Physically, he is an Aristotelian who believes in discipline. Socially, he supports the "do whatever makes you happy" ethos. He does not see that his social philosophy (Indifference) undermines his personal philosophy (Excellence). He lives off the moral capital of a discipline that his political philosophy cannot justify.

Ultimately, achieving true freedom is a matter of the disciplining of desire so as to make the achievement of the good first possible and then effortless.[10] This exercise of virtuous freedom gives rise to self-mastery. 

This idea was powerfully expressed by Samuel West in a sermon delivered to the Massachusetts legislature in 1776:

"The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself... Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends."[11]

Benny Johnson and the Profanity of the Unbound Will

Benny Johnson illustrates how the Freedom of Indifference inevitably descends into vulgarity, exposing the hollowness of a movement that defends "Tradition" while lacking the self-mastery to practice it. This performative contradiction is starkly visible in his viral video, Erika Kirk AMBUSHED By Reporter.

• The Context of Tragedy: Johnson opens the video with the actual, harrowing footage of Charlie Kirk’s final seconds before his assassination. He uses this clip to establish that the student questioning Kirk, Hunter Kozak, is the same individual who later questioned Kirk's widow, Erika, at a CBS town hall. This setup is designed to invoke righteous indignation at the perceived cruelty of the media "ambush."
   
• The Failure of Restraint: However, Johnson immediately pivots from a defense of dignity to a display of unbridled licentiousness. In his rage, he unleashes a torrent of profanity that betrays the very "Christian Civilization" he claims to defend.
  
  
  • "Get the f*** out of my sight": In his rant, he screams at the image of Kozak, "Now get the f*** out of my sight."
     
  • "So literally f*** off": Finally, at the end of the video (10:50), he gives a full-throated, "So literally f*** off."[12]
     
• The Profanation of Sexuality: The repeated use of the f-word is not merely a linguistic lapse; it is a metaphysical error central to the Western moral collapse. In Christian sexual mores, the sexual act is designed for the high purpose of procreation and union—a life-giving act reflecting the divine. To reduce this act to a verbal weapon of degradation ("f*** off") is to take something sacred and make it profane. It is a specific type of disorder where the life-giving faculty is twisted into a death-dealing insult. By utilizing this vulgarity, Johnson participates in the very degradation of sexual norms that the Conservative movement claims to oppose. He effectively says, "I will defend the sanctity of the family by using the language of sexual nihilism."
   
• The Disorder of Speech: Johnson uses the faculty of speech—designed for truth and communion—as a bludgeon of rage. He cannot simply dismantle his opponent's argument with reason; he must verbally assault him with vulgarity. This is the Freedom of Indifference in its purest, ugliest form: the freedom to say anything, regardless of its propriety or goodness, simply because the Will demands release. Johnson’s use of the f-word is a signal that for the New Right, "freedom" often means the license to be as profane and disordered as the culture they claim to despise.

Conclusion: The Disciplining of Desire

As West stated, humans are most free when they use their freedom to perfect themselves according to how God created them to function and be fulfilled. This is much like the process of being a good piano player or basketball player. To be good, you have to internalize the rules and practices of the craft until they become second nature.

This concept is further illuminated by Bishop Barron’s presentation on the Disciplining of Desire:

“Consider the mastery of language: I became free by internalizing the laws and syntax and grammar and vocabulary of English... and in the measure that that objective good became coherent with my will I became free to speak English. The principle is clear: the more we internalize those laws of how things work the freer we get.”[13]

The Conservative movement is currently prioritizing License (the raw power of the Will) over Virtue (the content of the Will). Influencers like Carlson, Fuentes, Pool, Rogan, and Johnson represent a "battleground" between these incompatible views.

As humans, we should fulfill our natures by making choices that honor and seek the good that is constitutive of our human nature. Perfect freedom comprises the pursuit of truth and the rejection of what is not reflective of the created reality.[14] The ultimate model for this is God Himself. God is free because in God his will his freedom is so ordered to his own goodness that it would never deviate from it.

When humans make choices based on emotion and passion—as seen in the "mean tweets," the "freedom to offend," and the "addiction to self"—they are far from being liberating; instead, they are enslaving. When the objective good becomes coherent or united to form a whole with our will we become free. We are called to respond to the objective good in love with our will.

Currently the “conservative movement” is trying to have it both ways. Until it resolves this tension—until it decides whether it wants to be a movement of Libertines or a movement of Saints—it will continue to produce "performative contradictions." True sexual liberation, and true political liberation, is not the freedom to express ourselves however we please, but instead, it is the freedom to flourish according to the purpose for which we were designed.

Endnotes

[1] Edward Feser, “Whose Nature? Which Law?” 

[2] Timothy Hsiao, “A Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument against Homosexual Sex,” The Heythrop Journal 56, no. 5 (2014): pp. 751-758. 

[3] Michael J. Loux and Thomas M. Crisp, Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 4th ed. (New York: Routledge, 2017), 231.

[4] Timothy Hsiao, “A Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument against Homosexual Sex.” 

[5] Edward Feser, “Whose Nature? Which Law?” 

[6] Timothy Hsiao, “A Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument against Homosexual Sex.” 

[7] Timothy Hsiao, “Consenting Adults, Sex, and Natural Law Theory,” Philosophia 44, no. 2 (January 2016): pp. 509-529. 

[8] Nick Fuentes, America First, "Episode 1109," aired November 2022. 

[9] Timothy Hsiao, “A Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument against Homosexual Sex.” 

[10] Robert Barron, "What is the True Nature of Freedom?" (lecture, Alliance for Responsible Citizenship Conference, London, 2023), published as "WOF 424: Freedom and the Disciplining of Desire," The Word on Fire Show, podcast audio, February 12, 2024. 

[11] Timothy Hsiao, “A Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument against Homosexual Sex.” 

[12] Benny Johnson, "Erika Kirk AMBUSHED By Reporter on LIVE TV," The Benny Johnson Show, December 17, 2025. 

[13] Bishop Robert Barron, “The Disciplining of Desire,” YouTube video, posted by "Bishop Robert Barron," April 13, 2017. 

[14] Bishop Robert Barron, “The Disciplining of Desire,” 8:30.