I see him as part of a tradition of conservative political thought that’s deeply committed to trying to understand the fundamentals of what was classically called ‘the human condition.’ This is not the sort of conservativism that most Americans and Canadians think of when they hear the term ‘conservative.’ For example, it has no necessary connection to the sort of uncritical championing of corporate capitalism favored by conservatives today. Rather, it is concerned with issues such as the fragility of cultural norms that help provide individuals with a sense of purpose, and enable societies to remain relatively peaceful and functional.
Conservatives of this stripe mistrust radical movements that are ready to rip apart a cultural fabric that took generations to weave in pursuit of some idealistic vision of social justice. They believe that there is such a thing as ‘human nature,’ and that it’s highly fallible, and inevitably bedeviled by problems such as envy, corruption, and greed.
Consequently, such conservatives have no faith in leftist visions of a transformational ‘revolution’ that will definitively destroy oppression and establish a truly just society. Instead, they see them as dangerously naïve, and likely to produce violent anarchy and/or repressive authoritarianism. While acknowledging the realities of social injustice, they believe that political reforms need to be cautiously incremental—in a word, conservative.
Kirjoitus sisältää laajaa kritiikkiä niitä kohtaan vasemmalla, jotka leimaavat yksikantaan Petersonin rasistiksi tai muuten taantumukselliseksi.
Kirjoittaja suree erityisesti siitä, että ne vasemmistolaiset jotka ajattelevat kuin kirjoittaja itse, usein eivät uskalla sanoa ajatuksiaan ääneen vaan pelkäävät joutumista suljetuksi ulos omasta sosiaalisesta verkostostaan, tai äärimäisessä tapauksessa siirtyvät oikeasti äärioikeiston leiriin.