Getting Out of the Jordan Peterson Trap

He was the perfect trap the far-left set for us

Back in 2018-19, when Jordan Peterson was at his peak, and going around promoting his criticism of what he called 'postmodern neo-Marxism', the far-left mounted a campaign against him, with the maximal amount of drama involved. They tried to cancel Peterson wherever he was scheduled to speak, and passed around media that was supposed to discredit Peterson, including that famous ContraPoints video (which was how she shot to viral fame, and ultimately became a target of far-left revolutionary bullies for many years, but that's another story). Back then, I thought that the far-left was doing what they were doing, because they were afraid that Peterson would be able to expose their real agenda, which would make their more moderate supporters turn away from them. Eager to expose the revolutionary bullies' deceitful and harmful agenda, I thus gave some support to Peterson's 'campaign', even as I knew we didn't see eye to eye on many political issues. I thought that someone had to stop the revolutionary bullies, and if Peterson is the only man we have, we couldn't afford to be picky. (Also remember that Peterson hadn't become his worst form at that point yet.)

Over the years, however, my original views on this matter started to crack. Firstly, there were other people who were doing more effective and accurate criticism's of the (LINK) critical anarchist left, without resorting to clunky and inaccurate terms like 'postmodern neo-Marxism' and Jungian metaphors all the time. Yet the revolutionary bullies didn't react much to those people. Secondly, I began to realize that Peterson wasn't even an effective critic of the critical anarchist left at all. There was a good reason he lost that infamous debate to Slavoj Zizek. In the debate, he kept conflating actual Marxism with what he called 'postmodern neo-Marxism', but he couldn't explain how or where the two were related in a convincing way to an intellectually serious audience. It appeared that he couldn't even give a good answer to the retort 'but Foucault wasn't a Marxist'. All this meant that he really posed no threat to the critical anarchist left's theory or worldview, except in a superficial sense. It was about as ineffective as using penicillin to kill Covid. Thus logically, the far-left wouldn't actually be afraid of what he had to offer. Finally, Jordan Peterson's zone of influence, so to speak, only shifted further and further to the right over time, and he became more and more irrelevant in liberal circles over time. This meant that he was never actually a threat to the far-left's plan to recruit impatient and Trump-frustrated liberals into their movement.

What we've concluded so far is that Peterson wasn't effective in even putting a dent in the far-left critical anarchist philosophy and worldview, and their plans to radicalize and recruit left-liberal people into their movement. So why did the far-left react in such a strong way against Peterson? My current, updated view is that they essentially picked a quarrel with Peterson because he was an easy opponent, in order to inoculate their peripheral followers and their potential future followers in the center-left against more robust criticisms of their program. Firstly, Peterson was already suspect in many left-of-center circles, for his opposition to trans rights legislation in Canada, his skepticism about climate change, and his strained relationship with feminists. All this, combined with his intellectually unconvincing talk about 'postmodern neo-Marxism', meant that he never had much credibility in the center-left. For many in the center-left, especially those who weren't aware of how extreme the far-left could go (which was the vast majority back then), Peterson was someone to be mocked for his alarmism about the left's supposed extremism, not someone to take seriously. He was the professor who supposedly conflated campus trans activists with Stalinist revolutionaries, while bullying feminist presenters on live TV. For many mainstream liberals, he sounded too similar to the far-right cranks who decried that gay marriage and multiculturalism were New World Order or 'cultural Marxist' conspiracies back in the 1990s and 2000s, his word salad about 'postmodern neo-Marxism' certainly not helping his case here.

What the far-left was doing was actually very similar to what right-wing influencers often do in their propaganda videos, where they choose the worst examples of feminists, LGBT activists and liberals in general to put on display, to convince their audience that these people are too ridiculous to even listen to. Using Jordan Peterson as their example, the far-left successfully convinced many liberals that criticisms against the 'woke left' are the stuff of far-right crankery, and are not worthy of listening to. The result was uncritical acceptance of the 'woke left' agenda, until at least late 2021 (the turning point apparently being the election of Republican Glenn Youngkin as Governor of Virginia, which caused the Democrats to actively pivot away from the 'woke left' as a whole). Thus the far-left were very successful in avoiding, or at least delaying, legitimate criticisms of their agenda from being widely heard and considered, by painting any such criticism as both cranky and in league with the far-right. Jordan Peterson was simply a tool they used for that purpose, and with great success too. The rejection of Jordan Peterson led to the automatic rejection of any and all similar criticisms of the 'woke left', even if they were much more robust and without the problematic baggage Peterson had. The Jordan Peterson trap meant that, whenever critics of the far-left sounded even a bit like Peterson, which was basically inevitable when we were talking about the same phenomena, we were often greeted with 'clean your room', 'something something bucko', or other Peterson-themed insults, and dismissed for supposedly being brainwashed Peterson fans.

While the whole drama about the attempts to 'cancel Jordan Peterson' are now mostly history, the effects of the Jordan Peterson trap that the far-left has set for its critics are far from over. While I'm glad that the ability to criticize far-left and specifically 'woke left' ideas in mainstream liberal media has been fully restored, the 3-4 years the far-left bought through the Peterson trap meant that their ideas now have many more adherents than they otherwise would have. There is also still a lot of resistance to any and all criticisms of the 'woke left' agenda in some circles, resistance that was likely built up back in Peterson's heyday. What we need to do now is to fully overcome the Peterson trap, by showing our potential listeners in liberal circles that we don't share Peterson's flaws. This will have to include both a serious and intellectually sound critique of the postmodern critical theory worldview, as well as a convincing demonstration that a liberal reformist agenda devoid of postmodern-critical influences is actually the best way to improve lives and bring about justice, including for disadvantaged minorities. We need to show our sincerity towards social justice in the first place, if we are to succeed in this. Boosting someone as flawed as Peterson to fight the far-left out of desperation was a mistake. Now we need to make the case for old-school pro-free speech liberalism, on our own terms and values, like we should have done in the first place

Breaking Free of the Left-Right Binary

What we need to remember is that the ‘non-left’ is not necessarily the ‘right’. Operators working for the political right, from YouTube influencers to those working in think tanks, make it look like you must pick a side, that if you are ‘non-left’ you need to join the right. They only say that because of their political incentives. There is no truth to this. In fact, the corralling of non-left people into the ‘right’ has only served to limit their individual free thinking, and lead to more tribalism and polarization, with power-hungry politicians and the vested interests they serve being the only entities that benefit from this. This is why I believe ‘non-left’ people need to not only resist joining the ‘right’, but also to critique and challenge it way more than we do now. But this is something I will leave for another article. My point here is that, ‘non-left’ doesn’t equal ‘right’, and a ‘non-left’ worldview and political program does not need to be right-wing or reactionary. This must be made clear.

I think that, going forward, what we need to do much more is to articulate a philosophically non-left progressive vision. One that can serve as an alternative to both the woke-left’s philosophy and activism, as well as the ‘populist’ right’s reactionary politics. One that is based on non-left philosophical traditions like classical liberalism, libertarianism, reformism, and Burkean conservatism, but strives to look forward and make things better for everyone.

I would call the worldview and its associated reformist program a ‘philosophically non-left progressive vision’. It is ‘philosophically non-left’ because we are not going to be beholden to the many maladaptive philosophical assumptions of the contemporary Western-left. On the other hand, it is still a ‘progressive vision’ because we still believe there should be less discrimination and more freedom for everyone, and we still wish to end racism, sexism, anti-LGBT and other forms of bigotry (using liberal means). The goals of this vision are ultimately going to have some common ground with the progressives on the left, even if there are still going to be plenty of differences, like our absolute commitment to free speech and freedom of conscience, things which the contemporary left clearly don’t respect enough. The most important thing is that the way we are going to get there is going to look very different.

What we need to remember is that the ‘non-left’ is simply those who are philosophically in disagreement with the ‘operating system’ of the contemporary Western left. This ‘operating system’ includes things like using an identity-as-class oppressor vs oppressed lens to examine things by default, seeing almost everything as interlocking oppressive social constructs rather than allowing that some things might have evolved as useful adaptations, seeing tradition as inherently oppressive and to be deconstructed, celebrating rebelliousness and subversion for the sake of it, hating on the ‘neoliberal logic of the market economy’ even in contexts where no worker is being oppressed or exploited, and so on. There are really too many of these philosophical assumptions that are generally accepted in the left as it exists, which have accumulated over the 100+ year history of the left. I oppose having to work within this ‘operating system’, because it polarizes society, compromises free speech, and most importantly, has proven to be generally ineffective, and even counterproductive in some cases. Instead, I primarily take my inspiration from older philosophical traditions, like classical liberalism, reformism, and yes, even Burkean conservatism, because it ensures that progress is sustainable rather than chaotic, and minimizes the resulting backlash that can actually hurt real people in the real world. This is why I’m ‘non-left’.

A philosophically non-left progressive vision would necessary involve ending racism, sexism, anti-LGBT-ism, and all other forms of bigotry, and would also necessarily involve an aspiration for world peace, rather than the forever acceptance of the ‘might makes right’ status quo among countries. Despite being constantly critical of the philosophical left, there is logically no way for those committed to these goals to fall into the trap of right-wing reactionism, due to the very clear incompatibilities. This means a program of critiquing wokeness that is committed to these goals would definitely not see a repeat of what happened to 2010s anti-wokeness.