Sad for Dr. Peterson

[Moksha]

I am feeling sad for Dr. Peterson. Was reading his latest Sic et Non blog post and realized he must abdicate all civic responsibility to pacify the political machinations of his donors. It is like an enforced head-in-the-sand policy and he has booted all posters who would challenge that abdication of civic responsibility.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... aring.html

[drumdude]

So he wants these donors’ money, and he also wants to disparage them for censoring him.

Seems he is having it both ways.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

he must abdicate all civic responsibility to pacify the political machinations of his donors.

He gave up his civic responsibility to pacify his donors. He gave up his intellectual honesty for the Interpreter Foundation/FARMS. He gave up his academic career for leisure. He gave up the WoW to pursue his earthly appetites. He gave up his soul for Mopologetics.

[Gadianton]

From the National Review article linked:

Is Trumpism a continuation — even a culmination or consummation — of the conservative movement launched by Buckley and others, or is it a break from it? I believe it is a break, and a sharp one.

It's a continuation. Just as Stone Cold Steve Austin was a continuation of the same WWE anchored a few years prior by Hulk Hogan.

The more I've read about Buckley here and there over the years, the more obvious it is that the shoe fits. When I was a student at the Lord's University and considered myself a free-market conservative, I don't think I understood what conservativism was. I was partial to Milton Friedman and libertarianism as an ideal. but from there? Friedman was an atheist, what other baggage was I missing? I think I just assumed it was obvious what a libertarian believed when in fact, there was never a such thing as a libertarian as I imagined it.

While it's to the proprietor's credit that he isn't suckered as easily into Trumpism as many other Mormons and apologists, there is much to like in Trumpism for Mopologetics. The only thing I see a problem with is the populism. But even this isn't straightforward. The Proprietor is an elitist (But so is Trump). It's important to rub elbows with important people and live a materialistic, worldly life on secular terms (as with Trump). Ironically given his post, messaging outweighs the details in Mopologetics just as it does in Trumpism. Sic et Non doesn't expect to ever have, for instance, a serious discussion of materialism, just like Trump isn't going to have a serious discussion about the national debt.

But the populism is conflicted. He often refers to liberals as "the self-anointed" or in terms of an elitist establishment, a secular ruling class that mimics the inflexibility of a religion. There is already long before Trump, a populist-friendly narrative of phony sophist liberals pitted against "plain folk" conservatives who say it straight and to the point. And so it's not exactly populism that is the problem, as the Proprietor participates in that narrative. I think it might come down to mannerisms, and how those mannerisms appeal to uneducated people. It's not so much that Trump lies (or is it? Maybe I'm wrong) but that he's crass. Well, that's what gets the votes -- why worry so much about it?

What is the material difference between Trump and a hypothetical candidate who practices Christianity and has good manners, aside from the latter wouldn't be as liked as much by most Christians? More to the point is the Proprietor's interest in Christian Nationalism. I've seen little to indicate that the world Trump works to bring about isn't the world that the Proprietor wants to live in. I could be wrong, of course, that's just my impression. If he were allowed to speak, I'd like to learn why he doesn't like Trump, outside of the fact that Trump isn't a Christian, is openly promiscuous, and wears a dumb baseball cap with his suit?

[drumdude]

Peterson is discovering that people love to blindly follow leaders. It’s the default behavior. They gladly follow the Mormon apostles into LGBT bashing. Trump followers are no different.

You have to teach people not to follow any leader with total obedience. Be they religious or political. A lifetime of being taught to follow the prophet has real consequences and turns them into natural Trump followers.

[Moksha]

Peterson is discovering that people love to blindly follow leaders. It’s the default behavior. They gladly follow the Mormon apostles into LGBT bashing. Trump followers are no different.

You have to teach people not to follow any leader with total obedience. Be they religious or political. A lifetime of being taught to follow the prophet has real consequences and turns them into natural Trump followers.

In both Trumpism and LGBTQ bashing, the moral center imparted by the Christian message must be ignored.

[Kishkumen]

I feel a great deal of sympathy for DCP on this. I realized some time ago that my political opinions were generally unwelcome in the classroom, so I quit sharing them. I was relieved to do so, though. They were a distraction. I teach ancient history, not contemporary politics. If anything, I am tired of the politicization of modern academics.

I also agree with him on the topic of media coverage of politics. It’s worse than absurd. It’s deleterious.

I also find this part of the article he linked very revealing. Anger at Ryan but no denials.

Trump’s outburst against Paul Ryan last Wednesday was provoked by a statement Ryan made on Fox News: “I voted for him in 2016, hoping that there was going to be a different kind of person in office, and I do think character is a really important issue. If you put yourself above the Constitution, as he has done, that means you’re unfit for office.”

In his response, Trump called Ryan many things, including a “weak and ineffective RINO,” a “total lightweight,” a “failed and pathetic Speaker of the House,” a “very disloyal person,” and a “dog.” (Dogs are famous for their loyalty.) About the “RINO” part, Trump may be right. “RINO” means “Republican in Name Only.” Trump has remade that party, and the general world around it.

Here is a Republican congressman, Troy Nehls of Texas, in his own response to Ryan: “Paul Ryan, you’re a piece of garbage. You’re a piece of garbage, and we should kick you out of the party.”

A bit more from Mr. Nehls: “Don’t go spouting your mouth off and saying that you’re a conservative. You’re spitting in the face of the leader of our party.”

[Gadianton]

It just depends on why the aforementioned doesn't like Trump. I have every reason to believe that the aforementioned is as gung ho for Christian Nationalism as Mike Johnson. If that's true, then Trump is his guy whether he wants it that way or not. Trump is the messiah for the Christian Nationalist.

I've mentioned my belief that Trump is an anti-hero before, I do believe that, but that's more about where non-thinking people are at in their entertainment narrative cycle. I think it's most likely for Christian Nationalism to win under a strong and corrupt leader. In theory, that leader could be a baby-faced Mike Johnson who checks the boxes Trump doesn't check: has read the Bible, goes to church, believes in Jesus, speaks normally, and overall is a polished human being. Would the aforementioned be okay with someone like MJ instead? My opinion is that most of the MAGA leaders score lower on the personal morality chart than Trump. Trump has had what I consider to be some decent impulses, and is left confused by the hateful and paranoid demands of his Christian base -- religion poisons everything, as they say. But like Aaron, if the Children of Israel want the calf of gold, he'll have it built. He knows who he works for.

Why is Trump better than a "straight-laced" Christian for the role of messiah? Trump can unite the right better than anyone else because he has no personal beliefs other than support Trump. That's powerful. What's the future of Mormonism if Christian Nationalism wins, when the Mormon vote isn't needed anymore? Trump's abject ignorance about religion is a huge selling point. It's not only that Trump has no beliefs about God, but in that regard, he can't be corrupted. That means 1) he has no theological prejudices against Mormonism (or insert denomination here) 2) he is incapable of being persuaded against any denomination, because he doesn't know anything about religion and is likely incapable of learning. Imagine a Trump pastor trying to convince Trump about some doctrinal minutia that has him in a pastor war with another church, even if it's a fellow Trump church with plenty of hate. Trump is going to be like, "Well, these people seem to like me, so what's the problem?"

I think Trump does well when he stands back and lets his base fantasize about his messiahship and he gets checked when he pushes it. Like when he sold those Bibles, I don't think it went over well with his base. He's at his best when he misquotes or invents Bible passages and evades questions about his own religiosity. Once the left is out of the way and we're living in a Christian autocracy, who will wield the power? What versions of Christian belief are acceptable? What creeds are deemed correct and what creeds will be illegal? A haplessly neutral messiah will be best for that transition.

[Kishkumen]

It just depends on why the aforementioned doesn't like Trump. I have every reason to believe that the aforementioned is as gung ho for Christian Nationalism as Mike Johnson. If that's true, then Trump is his guy whether he wants it that way or not. Trump is the messiah for the Christian Nationalist.

I don’t know. I think most LDS people who are well informed probably understand that the end game of Christian Nationalism won’t be very good for “cultists” (as Protestants truly see LDS people). Probably doesn’t help the apologists that they are openly anti-Calvinism.

Now, the Kingdom of God? They are on board with that 100%. But I am not sure what that means to them in the details. I don’t think they believe Trump gets them there or is anything like a step in the right direction. If I were in their shoes, I’d believe Trump to be an anti-Christ.

[Gadianton]

You might be right, and I hope you are. I'd love to be wrong about this. I just haven't seen anything to indicate it.