Tao Economics Forum

Full Version: Why the left is afraid of Jordan Peterson
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/...ssion=true

Quote:Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson

The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.

Two years ago, I walked downstairs and saw one of my teenage sons watching a strange YouTube video on the television.

“What is that?” I asked.
He turned to me earnestly and explained, “It’s a psychology professor at the University of Toronto talking about Canadian law.”

“Huh?” I said, but he had already turned back to the screen. I figured he had finally gotten to the end of the internet, and this was the very last thing on it.

That night, my son tried to explain the thing to me, but it was a buzzing in my ear, and I wanted to talk about something more interesting. It didn’t matter; it turned out a number of his friends—all of them like him: progressive Democrats, with the full range of social positions you would expect of adolescents growing up in liberal households in blue-bubble Los Angeles—had watched the video as well, and they talked about it to one another.  

The boys graduated from high school and went off to colleges where they were exposed to the kind of policed discourse that dominates American campuses. They did not make waves; they did not confront the students who were raging about cultural appropriation and violent speech; in fact, they forged close friendships with many of them. They studied and wrote essays and—in their dorm rooms, on the bus to away games, while they were working out—began listening to more and more podcasts and lectures by this man, Jordan Peterson.


The young men voted for Hillary, they called home in shock when Trump won, they talked about flipping the House, and they followed Peterson to other podcasts—to Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. What they were getting from these lectures and discussions, often lengthy and often on arcane subjects, was perhaps the only sustained argument against identity politics they had heard in their lives.

That might seem like a small thing, but it’s not. With identity politics off the table, it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology. All of these young people, without quite realizing it, were joining a huge group of American college students who were pursuing a parallel curriculum, right under the noses of the people who were delivering their official educations.

Because all of this was happening silently, called down from satellites and poured in through earbuds—and not on campus free-speech zones where it could be monitored, shouted down, and reported to the appropriate authorities—the left was late in realizing what an enormous problem it was becoming for it. It was like the 1960s, when kids were getting radicalized before their parents realized they’d quit glee club. And it was not just college students. Not by a long shot.

Around the country, all sorts of people were listening to these podcasts. Joe Rogan’s sui generis show, with its surpassingly eclectic mix of guests and subjects, was a frequent locus of Peterson’s ideas, whether advanced by the man himself, or by the thinkers with whom he is loosely affiliated. Rogan’s podcast is downloaded many millions of times each month. Whatever was happening, it was happening on a scale and with a rapidity that was beyond the ability of the traditional culture keepers to grasp. When the left finally realized what was happening, all it could do was try to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a spoon.

The alarms sounded when Peterson published what quickly became a massive bestseller, 12 Rules for Life, because books are something that the left recognizes as drivers of culture. The book became the occasion for vicious profiles and editorials, but it was difficult to attack the work on ideological grounds, because it was an apolitical self-help book that was at once more literary and more helpful than most, and that was moreover a commercial success. All of this frustrated the critics. It’s just common sense! they would say, in one arch way or another, and that in itself was telling: Why were they so angry about common sense?

The critics knew the book was a bestseller, but they couldn’t really grasp its reach because people like them weren’t reading it, and because it did not originally appear on The New York Times’s list, as it was first published in Canada. However, it is often the bestselling nonfiction book on Amazon, and—perhaps more important—its audiobook has been a massive seller. As with Peterson’s podcasts and videos, the audience is made up of people who are busy with their lives—folding laundry, driving commercial trucks on long hauls, sitting in traffic from cubicle to home, exercising. This book was putting words to deeply held feelings that many of them had not been able to express before.

The alarms sounded when Peterson published what quickly became a massive bestseller, 12 Rules for Life, because books are something that the left recognizes as drivers of culture. The book became the occasion for vicious profiles and editorials, but it was difficult to attack the work on ideological grounds, because it was an apolitical self-help book that was at once more literary and more helpful than most, and that was moreover a commercial success. All of this frustrated the critics. It’s just common sense! they would say, in one arch way or another, and that in itself was telling: Why were they so angry about common sense?

The critics knew the book was a bestseller, but they couldn’t really grasp its reach because people like them weren’t reading it, and because it did not originally appear on The New York Times’s list, as it was first published in Canada. However, it is often the bestselling nonfiction book on Amazon, and—perhaps more important—its audiobook has been a massive seller. As with Peterson’s podcasts and videos, the audience is made up of people who are busy with their lives—folding laundry, driving commercial trucks on long hauls, sitting in traffic from cubicle to home, exercising. This book was putting words to deeply held feelings that many of them had not been able to express before.

There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind. When the poetry editors of The Nation virtuously publish an amateurish but super-woke poem, only to discover that the poem stumbled across several trip wires of political correctness; when these editors (one of them a full professor in the Harvard English department) then jointly write a letter oozing pathos and career anxiety and begging forgiveness from their critics; when the poet himself publishes a statement of his own—a missive falling somewhere between an apology, a Hail Mary pass, and a suicide note; and when all of this is accepted in the houses of the holy as one of the regrettable but minor incidents that take place along the path toward greater justice, something is dying.

When the top man at The New York Times publishes a sober statement about a meeting he had with the president in which he describes instructing Trump about the problem of his “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” and then three days later the paper announces that it has hired a writer who has tweeted about her hatred of white people, of Republicans, of cops, of the president, of the need to stop certain female writers and journalists from “existing,” and when this new hire will not be a beat reporter, but will sit on the paper’s editorial board—having a hand in shaping the opinions the paper presents to the world—then it is no mystery that a parallel culture of ideas has emerged to replace a corrupted system. When even Barack Obama, the poet laureate of identity politics, is moved to issue a message to the faithful, hinting that that they could be tipping their hand on all of this—saying during a speech he delivered in South Africa that a culture is at a dead end when it decides someone has no “standing to speak” if he is a white man—and when even this mayday is ignored, the doomsday clock ticks ever closer to the end.

In the midst of this death rattle has come a group of thinkers, Peterson foremost among them, offering an alternative means of understanding the world to a very large group of people who have been starved for one. His audience is huge and ever more diverse, but a significant number of his fans are white men. The automatic assumption of the left is that this is therefore a red-pilled army, but the opposite is true. The alt-right venerates identity politics just as fervently as the left, as the title of a recent essay reproduced on the alt-right website Counter-Currents reveals: “Jordan Peterson’s Rejection of Identity Politics Allows White Ethnocide.”


If you think that a backlash to the kind of philosophy that resulted in The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming. And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded. All across the country, there are people as repelled by the current White House as they are by the countless and increasingly baroque expressions of identity politics that dominate so much of the culture. These are people who aren’t looking for an ideology; they are looking for ideas. And many of them are getting much better at discerning the good from the bad. The Democratic Party reviles them at its peril; the Republican Party takes them for granted in folly.
Perhaps, then, the most dangerous piece of “common sense” in Peterson’s new book comes at the very beginning, when he imparts the essential piece of wisdom for anyone interested in fighting a powerful, existing order. “Stand up straight,” begins Rule No. 1, “with your shoulders back.”

Definitely a positive influence on straight white males struggling with the pressures of identity politics. Wish there was a similar populist my daughter could follow.
(08-20-2018, 11:22 AM)mason Wrote: [ -> ]Definitely a positive influence on straight white males struggling with the pressures of identity politics. Wish there was a similar populist my daughter could follow.

Peterson's not totally male orientated. Most of his points carry across.
(08-21-2018, 04:41 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-20-2018, 11:22 AM)mason Wrote: [ -> ]Definitely a positive influence on straight white males struggling with the pressures of identity politics. Wish there was a similar populist my daughter could follow.

Peterson's not totally male orientated. Most of his points carry across.

Yes, but my daughter has been indoctrinated by ideologies taught in K12 and pushed in universities. She has too much invested in her own feminine identity to give a male patriarchy figure much attention. I expect she will outgrow her delusions, since they are not resentful or hateful ones, but I also expect her to strengthen that feminine identity over time. I have no problem with that, I even encourage it. There are a lot of scumbags out there making a little suspicion of male motives a healthy thing. That is, as long as I'm the exception! A popular woman figure with similar views as Peterson would be very helpful to her and many of her peers IMO.

@sliverfish, I read your earlier post and agreed with most of it. Seems to be missing this morning, though. We have your middle class people here in droves as well, we just don't call them that.
(08-21-2018, 12:32 PM)mason Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-21-2018, 04:41 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-20-2018, 11:22 AM)mason Wrote: [ -> ]Definitely a positive influence on straight white males struggling with the pressures of identity politics. Wish there was a similar populist my daughter could follow.

Peterson's not totally male orientated. Most of his points carry across.

Yes, but my daughter has been indoctrinated by ideologies taught in K12 and pushed in universities. She has too much invested in her own feminine identity to give a male patriarchy figure much attention. I expect she will outgrow her delusions, since they are not resentful or hateful ones, but I also expect her to strengthen that feminine identity over time. I have no problem with that, I even encourage it. There are a lot of scumbags out there making a little suspicion of male motives a healthy thing. That is, as long as I'm the exception! A popular woman figure with similar views as Peterson would be very helpful to her and many of her peers IMO.

@sliverfish, I read your earlier post and agreed with most of it. Seems to be missing this morning, though. We have your middle class people here in droves as well, we just don't call them that.

The school of reality will probably sort her out. If she's not sorted by 25 you might have a problem.

I was careful to inoculate mine from an early age.
(08-22-2018, 04:43 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-21-2018, 12:32 PM)mason Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-21-2018, 04:41 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-20-2018, 11:22 AM)mason Wrote: [ -> ]Definitely a positive influence on straight white males struggling with the pressures of identity politics. Wish there was a similar populist my daughter could follow.

Peterson's not totally male orientated. Most of his points carry across.

Yes, but my daughter has been indoctrinated by ideologies taught in K12 and pushed in universities. She has too much invested in her own feminine identity to give a male patriarchy figure much attention. I expect she will outgrow her delusions, since they are not resentful or hateful ones, but I also expect her to strengthen that feminine identity over time. I have no problem with that, I even encourage it. There are a lot of scumbags out there making a little suspicion of male motives a healthy thing. That is, as long as I'm the exception! A popular woman figure with similar views as Peterson would be very helpful to her and many of her peers IMO.

@sliverfish, I read your earlier post and agreed with most of it. Seems to be missing this morning, though. We have your middle class people here in droves as well, we just don't call them that.

The school of reality will probably sort her out. If she's not sorted by 25 you might have a problem.

I was careful to inoculate mine from an early age.

I'm not particularly worried. The only real risk is if she goes into politics after law school, the fastest path to advancement is on the left. I doubt it, though. She hates politicians, probably even more than me.
My daughter has married a lawyer - both work in insurance.
Great post. Captured Peterson's effect very well.