How psychologist Jordan Peterson shaped Trump's path to victory Defeating feminists and left-liberals

Professional psychologist and well-known publicist Jordan Peterson defeated liberals and feminists, paving the way for Trump's victory.

Today, the American and international press are full of analyses, with authors trying to understand the reasons and consequences of Donald Trump's victory in the US elections. Much is said about those who created the conditions for his win. Numerous articles are dedicated to Elon Musk, who may have become the main engine of Trump's election campaign and, after the elections, his most powerful supporter. Now, Musk combines control over a vast industrial and financial technological empire and, to a large extent, leads US domestic and foreign policy, including lobbying for peace and friendship with Tehran and Beijing. Part of his business is based in China—the largest Tesla factory—and the Iranians, in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions, could offer him lithium deposits.

After Elon Musk, we encounter another hero of Trump's new era, the intellectual Jordan Peterson, whose stock may have risen or already risen. Peterson is a person of a different kind. He is not connected to Trump in any way. Peterson is a clinical psychologist, and until recently, a professor at the University of Toronto. One of the areas of his professional activity is social psychology. He knows how to make money. His self-help books have sold millions of copies, and his sharp debates with liberal opponents and his ability to present his ideas clearly and simply have gained him widespread support. In an era dominated by liberals and left-liberals, he became famous as a defender of free speech. In 2016, Peterson recorded a speech criticizing a Canadian bill that required the use of special pronouns for transgender people. This law introduced state censorship, altering language under the threat of punishment.

Peterson stood up to feminists during public debates. His brilliant counterattacks against the prevailing left-liberal trend were so successful that millions of young people grew to admire and respect him.

In response to discussions about the disparity between men and women in modern Western society (for example, in the UK, only 7 per cent of women hold leadership positions in the 100 largest companies, and the average salary for women is 9 per cent lower than that of men), Peterson pointed out that we are dealing with a complex, multifactorial reality. While acknowledging the existence of discrimination, he noted that in Scandinavian countries, where gender equality programs and laws are among the most advanced in the world, women overwhelmingly dominate the healthcare sector, while men predominate in engineering professions. Men and women differ to some extent (on average statistical levels). Society should ensure equality of opportunity, but equality of outcomes will never be achieved, simply because there are psychological differences between men and women. Although, in some cases, radical and liberal strands of feminism rightly highlight instances of discrimination against women, they often exaggerate the scale of discrimination, ignore other factors, and fail to recognize areas where men suffer more.

Feminists often talk about patriarchy and male dominance. They ignore the fact that power in Western society, including in the US, is held by tiny groups of men, while the majority do not dominate the political or economic system. There is no patriarchy, no rule of men as a whole. When you say that men control the majority of capital and wealth, you're talking about a tiny percentage of people. Most prisoners in jails are men. Most homeless people are men. Most victims of violent crimes, people committing suicide, and those dying in wars are men. Where is the dominance here?

In some ways, men suffer less, and in others, they suffer more. Feminists isolate specific phenomena from the complex, multifaceted reality to attack men as if they represent some all-powerful corporation, which, of course, does not exist. Feminism, as one of the author’s acquaintances pointed out, is nationalism in a gendered form. It is an attempt to discredit the other and take their place in the sun.

However, it should be noted that feminists vary, with some advocating for gender equality, while others are simply fighting for power and privileges.

Since then, Peterson’s fame has grown. It is he who has provided arguments to some young people, both men and women, who do not view gender relations in a confrontational manner. But he also gave voice to young men whose position in society was undermined by left-liberals.

The liberal publication The Economist is forced to acknowledge part of the truth. Young men are facing problems, it reports, as the world has long shifted to an information-based economy, one that prioritizes brains over brawn. Women have thrived. But what about men? Not always. In the US and the UK, boys lag behind girls in primary, secondary, and higher education. According to Francis Fukuyama, a political science professor at Stanford University, the appeal of Peterson and even Trump is "really driven by a big…socio-economic shift."

Discussing the issues facing men might provoke a backlash in left-wing and liberal circles, but not for Peterson. "Boys," he writes in his book 12 Rules for Life, "are suffering in the modern world." As he put it in his bestselling book: "Toughen up!"

But there is something the publication omits. The policy of the ruling Democratic Party in the US (until recently) relied on certain electoral groups, primarily women and various minorities. This is why the Democrats and their associated corporate circles (the "bobo" — bourgeois-bohemian) pushed for various social benefits for these demographic groups. Of course, when 80 per cent of Black voters support you, it’s in your interest to protect a system of benefits that, according to the US Department of Justice, gives Black students four times more likely (all else being equal) to be accepted into Yale than Jews, Chinese, or Whites. And when the majority of your electorate is women, you’ll likely support movements like #MeToo (which started with valid claims but ended up as a witch hunt, attacking any man based solely on suspicion). Behind left-liberal demagoguery lies tribalism and clientelism — these frightening words simply mean that ruling groups protect their "tribes" to ensure their support for the elite's hold on power. Of course, this inevitably irritates other "tribes," or rather, other social groups.

But this could not last forever. Men and white people (including many women) fought back in the elections, joined by many angry Latino men, and the result was Trump’s victory. Peterson was one of those who, perhaps without intending to, helped pave the way for it. He taught many people how to argue with left-liberals and effectively dismantled feminists in public debate.

However, the competition among those eager to build careers in corporations and bureaucratic offices will continue. Men and women, Black and White, driven by a thirst for money and power, will keep attacking each other. The story is far from over, and it will not be over as long as money rules the world. Supporters of Peterson and Trump won the battle, but it’s unlikely that there can ever be winners in such a war.

As Peterson observed, left-liberal madness can provoke a sharp right-wing reaction. This includes xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiments, and censorship — but of a different kind. Now, Trump’s opponents claim that his 2025 agenda could transform the US into an "authoritarian nationalist Christian state." In response, his critics argue that this is merely speculation.

Ultimately, Peterson concludes, feminists and their left-liberal allies ignore the simple fact that for millennia, in the conditions of "absolute catastrophe" — hard labour, the absence of modern comforts and medicine — loving men and women helped each other, and without this cooperation, humanity would never have survived. Gender relations are not, and never have been, about competition for a place in the hierarchy. This may be one of Peterson's most interesting ideas.