On Science: It is not my claim that any political orientation has a monopoly on science. I’ve spoken to left-leaning and right-leaning individuals and both, generally speaking, have blind spots when it comes to what they claim to believe. Gender studies is not a real field. One of the colloquium courses I took in grad school was a course that was part of the history and women’s and gender fields. This course included such figures as Catharine MacKinnon,a radical feminist ideologue who spent much of her career supporting the anti-porn movement. She seems unable to comprehend human nature at any deep level. You seem to want to dismiss a variety of fields. I must say, I am skeptical of anyone who would dismiss evolutionary psychology while propping up politicized perspectives. Feminists can be pro-environment but feminism, generally speaking is a different movement (or, rather, series of movements). I would dispute your opening remarks about feminism and what stage the current movement most resembles. Besides, I think the time for feminism has passed — equality of opportunity for the individual is what really matters in a free society.
My rejection of many of the points you put forward is based in the misinterpretation of many of the terms you use (‘Alt Right,’ ‘Conservative,’ etc.). I would also argue that you would be better off critiquing Trump and Republican officials as they are the ones you seem to have the most against.
You have spoken about conservatives and how they interpret Jordan Peterson’s ideas. The people who seem most receptive to his ideas, in my experience, are liberals and libertarians (many of whom have either not gone to college, or dropped out). I’ve no doubt that there are quite a few people who have come across a couple Jordan Peterson clips and see him as a right-leaning figure who confirms their views to a greater or lesser degree. However, these would almost certainly not be far-right figures as they tend to dislike Jordan Peterson the more they know about him.
On Trump: I’m no Trump supporter and no supporter of the Democratic establishment. However, I can understand where the Trump voters are coming from, generally speaking. A majority of my family likely voted for the guy. In the IDW, Jordan Peterson was the only one who said, theoretically speaking, he would have probably voted for Trump in 2016 were he an American citizen (he specified that he would have gone to the voting booth intending to vote Hillary then, vote Trump due to Hillary’s sanctimonious condescension. Trump did not win 2016, the Democrats lost it. I voted third party soon after formally leaving the Democratic Party.
“This debate will have a resolution. Someday, Peterson will be forced, if I am right, to choose to endorse Donald Trump. When he does, he’ll send massive criticisms, decry violence of the right, and offer cultural advice of bipartisanship.” In other words, he will offer a nuanced endorsement (of whatever candidate he might endorse). You seem dismissive of the elements of the message he might give and want to reduce it down to a low-resolution endorsement of a candidate and all his positions. The majority of people I went to grad school with voted for Hillary, though almost none actually liked her. Endorsing a candidate (especially if one buys into the duopoly mindset) means endorsing someone with whom you will likely have reservations to say the least.
Well, this series of responses has drifted quite far from the original Schiff article and my response to it. You appear more concerned with Peterson for political reasons — specifically that people on the right are using his positions to help justify their views. Look at any great thinker in history. People Thomas Jefferson and Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, could be interpreted from left- or right-leaning positions. I would argue this is because what they have to say, at any deep level, transcends mere political factions. Schiff’s article and its Savonarola-style fear mongering, appears to miss the mark entirely. To the extent that his arguments have any real impact it is because of two things: (1) he knows Peterson personally and played a role in his professional career and (2) his low-resolution critiques of Peterson, if not examined at any depth, appear to hold greater weight than they actually do. I do not think Schiff is an inherently bad person, I just think he is unreliable with regard to what he speaks about in this particular article.