Some right-leaning political proponents of Jordan Peterson feel “betrayed” that he might not think too highly of Kavanaugh, or the political situation in the US. But you should be hesitant to jump on the outrage bandwagon. You’re better than that.
Read on! And let us know what you think in the comments below.
In an October 5th, 2018 tweet, Jordan Peterson (University of Toronto Professor, staunch opponent of leftist identity politics, and author of the recent best-selling book, 12 Rules for Life) wrote the following: “If confirmed Kavanaugh should step down.”
Perhaps, unsurprisingly, there’s been a bit of an uproar to Dr. Peterson’s perceived “tune-changing” here – those who saw him as the rising star and standard bearer for conservative politics are feeling a little betrayed (you can watch a 7+ minute narrated youtube video in response to his tweet (here) that’s full of an irritating amount of “wait, what?” sentiment.)
But perhaps Peterson sees the situation for what it is: complicated. He seems to be thinking aloud about a potential solution to minimize a controversial situation that has again succeeded to tear apart the American public. And, in the end, we have a few different story arcs here:
A) A political party (in this case, the GOP) chose to show strength by not backing down to a campaign against the appointment of their desired Supreme Court nominee – a campaign based on a 30+ year old story of alleged sexual misconduct.
Was it a smear campaign? I honestly don’t know. Perhaps only Judge Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford know the real answer to that. But obviously the Republican party was hesitant to remove Kavanaugh offhand for fear of setting a precedent that any party’s nominee can be destroyed through allegations that have yet to be proven. Hopefully the FBI’s investigation was thorough (and obviously there are opinions about this point, as well). But again, I don’t know the truth of either the allegations or the effectiveness of those doing the investigations.
In the end, though, the conclusions of the FBI investigation did not dissuade a majority of the senate from appointing Judge Kavanaugh. Whether that means there simply wasn’t a preponderance of damning evidence, or that the Republicans (or simply those senators who voted to appoint) were immorally partisan given what they know or learned, I don’t know. Nor likely, do you.
That said, we’re left with another issue…
B) We now have an appointed Supreme Court Justice who, in the course of his confirmation hearing, went on and on about how much he “liked beer, drank beer” etc, and whose yearbook contents and the descriptions of his behavior in high school and college paint him as a partier, a drunk, and someone who likely joked and bragged about his sexual conquests.
Perhaps such exploits (or suggestions thereof) are not something wholly unique to the experience / behavior of many high school and college boys (or girls, for that matter), but they’re certainly not something to be proud of, or something that aligns with most people’s ideas about the character of a Supreme Court Justice. And now these stories and evidence (and the spotlight shined upon them) have left a sour taste in the mouths of (and have had a polarizing effect toward) the citizenry of the United States (in BOTH political parties) and of the rest of the world that’s paying attention.
I mean, is anyone really “proud” to have Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court? Perhaps one could be proud of the Republicans for not backing down to what was perceived as a potential smear campaign (and ok – I can understand that if that’s what it was), but can anyone be truly proud of Kavanaugh’s current image and what it brings to our Supreme Court, given his ability (or lack thereof) to formulate calm, articulate, logical responses during the confirmation hearing (and the content of those responses)? Couldn’t you imagine that a more fitting (or perhaps non-polarizing) candidate existed?
Saturday Night Live was quick to parody the proceedings. Some parts were funny. Some parts felt like SNL was trying too hard to make a political point (the truth is I’m not certain SNL knows where the line between the two actually falls). That said, funny or not, at 21 Million views (at time of publishing this post) and counting, there might be more people who saw the SNL parody than who saw the actual proceedings themselves. And that’s not good for the country and its trust in our Supreme Court.
Conversely, to judge Kavanaugh (see what I did there?) based solely on his behavior in that hearing wouldn’t be fair either, but the fact of the matter is that the media circus of the last few months has likely been the only real exposure the general public has had to Judge Kavanaugh so far, and I’m not sure anyone could argue that the impression he’s cultivated (or that has been cultivated about him) has been pristine.
And so we likely now have a public that doesn’t know how to feel. I mean, if you lean left, you’ll likely be further convinced that the Republicans will forego their oft-touted morality to ensure party power. If you’re right leaning (but have a heart), you might feel like the Republicans ensured a strategic victory, but now we’re left with a Supreme Court Justice who isn’t exactly someone you want your kids idolizing. Which is a shame, because it’s the Supreme Court we’re talking about here.
Maybe this will all shed light on a deeper issue. I mean, one could wonder about the merits of letting the party in power nominate the justice (or even the merits of having the justice position be life-long). I’m not saying I have a better solution, but I’m certain that Americans hope that our legal system is somehow above the petty power struggles of our two-party system. And yet the highest judicial powers in the land are appointed by politicians – politicians who have shown time and time again to be easily corruptible.
Yes, all power corrupts, and no, I’m not sure there’s a better solution. But why don’t people talk less about the strategy of “which party gets to appoint a justice” and more about “just what are the potential negative consequences of politicians appointing justices anyway? And how could those negative effects be mitigated?”
Perhaps that’s the subject of another blog (and I’d love your thoughts).
So, back to Peterson…
Jordan Peterson isn’t an ideologue, and he doesn’t toe a party line. He’s a thinker, and he’s not afraid to explore paths of reasoning that aren’t normally trodden, if only to see where they go. So, don’t be amazed that he tweeted an interesting (and perhaps flawed) solution that happens to put him at odds with the conservative “team,” even when he’s been so critical of the radical left in so much of his public speech and rhetoric.
What I believe he’s hoping to do is reduce this divide in our country – a divide that is exacerbated every time people identify more strongly with a political party than they do with actual IDEAS. Political parties are, in essence, groups of ideas, but because there’s also power and posturing involved, the validity of those ideas are often valued less than loyalty to the party itself. Coupled with the fact that a thinking human (all of us being unique and subject to our own opinions) might take issue with a few (or many) of the ideas of the party with which they tend to most identify, we often find ourselves in a moral dilemma. To espouse one’s ideals, or play the game? Both have real consequences. The stronger the identification one feels to their party, the more internal struggle that any individual might feel when that party (or its ideas) lets them down.
That feeling of “betrayal” that some are spouting about Peterson’s tune-changing simply demonstrates that despite Professor Peterson’s insatiable desire to explain, in great detail, the roots of his often complex thinking and how he arrives at his often controversial conclusions, many still underestimate him as a thinker. Rather than listen to his arguments (regardless of party), they instead seek to use him and his notoriety to justify their own political views.
He may still be wrong about things (or have opinions with which you disagree), but if he’s on anyone’s team, he’s on the team of thinkers, not of either party.
Speaking of thinking, what do you think? If you like this post (or if you don’t, and you want your friends to see how asinine I’ve been), please consider sharing it on your social media. Either way, respond below!
~Cecil
UPDATE: I’m now a full-time recording artist out of Nashville, TN (Cecil Charles). I’m supporting myself (and releasing one, studio quality song per month for 2019 and, well, as far into the future as I can see), by generous listeners and readers like you.
It’s melodic pop, full and rich and filled with harmonies and layers of sound. Sometimes folky, sometimes funky, and I think you might enjoy. Listen below!
Then check out my Patreon page – a simple $5 pledge gets you free downloads of each monthly song, as well as exclusive content (song ideas I’m working on, updates on shows, news from traveling, and more). It allows me to take you along on this journey I’m on, as a full-time recording artist and essayist. Every little bit helps, so thank you in advance for your consideration!
[instagram-feed id=”8672443920″]
If Justice Kavanaugh was of a moral character to step down for the good of the country I would respect him more than I do right now.