![]() But the situation in the United States is way more complicated than that. JP: Well, you know, what happens in the United States, I think, is that anything that smacks of support for Trump is immediately associated with the alt-right. There’s a lot of noise about the alt-right, but I can’t figure out who the alt-right people are. One of the consequences of that is that the doctrine that those entities have been producing is spilling over into society, to a large degree. If you look at the radical left, it’s obvious that they have a stranglehold, I would say, on the universities, and especially the humanities and social sciences. But I have a hard time putting my finger on who, exactly, these alt-right people are. The thing is, there’s a lot of noise in the press, especially as you move towards the radical left, about the alt-right. You see that on the right, with their claims of ethnic and national superiority.ĭM: Do you hear some of that coming back more? Insofar as the left-wingers and the right-winger are collectivist, then they’re wrong. And there’s collectivist left-wingers and there’s collectivist right-wingers. But there’s another axis, which is, probably, collectivist versus individualist. JP: Generally, the way we’re conceptualizing the political landscape is right to left, as a distribution. I think the right errs in the same way that the left does, when they play identity politics. So there’s the hard line, which is ethnic identity as a mark of superiority, and then there’s a looser line, where there’s also error. ![]() I think the classic errors of the right are to fail to attend sufficiently to the tendency for hierarchies to degenerate into corruption, because of wilful blindness and rigidity-and, of course, that’s something that the left takes the right to task for, generally speaking. That’s the cliff place, where dialog inevitably degenerates into conflict. We seem to have come to a pretty general consensus, I would say, that claims of ethnic or racial superiority place you outside the realm of acceptable political discourse. That’s probably a consequence, mostly, of moral deliberations undertaken after World War II. Jordan Peterson: I think we have been able to box in the more unfortunate elements of the right. What are your thoughts on that currently, of where the right of politics gets to go wrong?ĭr. ![]() The cliff edge is more vertiginous, it seems. Where the right goes wrong in politics, and where the left goes wrong in politics. But today I wonder if we can pivot to politics, and to one thing in particular, which has been on my mind, and which I know has been on your mind-which is the issue of where politics goes wrong. Douglas Murray: Jordan, we’ve been spending some time together recently on stage, talking, among other things, about God.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |