No but he IS an idiot who is taking the place of a real public intellectual to foster unity in these troubled times.
As a unifying force I agree with you, he isn't that, he is a culture warrior in the culture war. I would disagree that he's an idiot, though I would agree that he sometimes says things that range from "wrong" to "idiotic". He infamously said to Cathy Newman that "in order to be able to think (my edit: or express those thoughts through speech), you have to risk being offensive". So maybe you also have to risk sounding like an idiot sometimes too, especially when one gets emotional/angry as debates can get, and we all know Jordan is an intense dude who can be quick to anger.
Anyways, this is in your wheelhouse MH: a long-form debate between educated people discussing ideas: Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson, moderated by Bret Weinstein. An intellectual dark web face-off lol.
Debate is about morals, religion etc. Harris is famously anti-religious. Weinstein says in the intro that some of the important things that we have traditionally counted on in order to make sense of the world are collapsing, like the university, and journalism, etc. So this debate is to try address meaning in our increasingly confusing world.
One of the things they agree on at the outset is that 1. moral relativism (there is no right and wrong) is bad, and 2. religious (and non-religious) dogma is bad. They roughly define dogma as beliefs held as true (usually based on bad evidence) which cannot be questioned, and this dogma is enforced by some kind of punishment mechanism (ie: apostates put to death, or threats of your soul burning in hell). They also mention political dogma that is bad, like how people who would speak out against the state in the Soviet Union were killed or jailed etc. They then agree that this is why free speech is so important: you're allowed to question any ideas freely, no matter how highly people regard them.
My opinion is that I agree with all of this. And it shows why dictatorships are bad and why liberal democracy is good. In liberal democracy we are guaranteed the right to speech, to question ideas, so that when possible we can discover flaws in our currently held ideas and improve upon them, and can also improve upon the law, and even amending the constitution. This makes for a good, healthy society. In dictatorships free speech is shunned, you aren't allowed to question the state and its laws and values etc, it is considered "dogma" and people are brainwashed to believe it, the same as religious dogma. And so because certain powerful people want to cling to power, and don't want their ideas questioned, it is much harder and slower for society to improve, only until society collapses or some major crisis occurs where reevaluation can occur, like when the USSR fell, or Nazi Germany fell.
This is also why i'm ok with discussing any topic whatsoever., in the pursuit of knowledge I may disagree with a biological racist or a holocaust denier, but if they claim to have good evidence of why they're correct, then we shouldn't mind hearing the evidence. If they are wrong then the evidence will clearly counter their claims, which can then be ignored. There should be no ideas that are elevated to the level of "dogma". The argument that we should maintain dogma and enforce it with punishments for those who question it because there happens to be an idiotic fringe minority that can be whipped up into a frenzy by believing in fringe claims based on bad evidence is a weak argument, and not a reason to shut our ears to controversial subjects, because as Peterson says "in order to be able to think, we have to risk being offensive". And it can be a great excuse for people who wish to enforce dogmatic ideas to never have to hear any counter-arguments and never be questioned.
I think we're living in a new age of dogma, where traditional religious dogma is being replaced by political and moral dogma, and "apostates" are being punished (ie: "cancelled"), sometimes rightfully, but sometimes unjustly, for questioning dogma and causing moral outrage akin to Christian grandmothers clutching their pearls 50 years ago. Socrates was put to death by the state for question dogma. He famously also believed that wisdom comes from recognizing one's own ignorance.
But then it also begs the question: if our universities/schools, journalism outlets etc are being so politicized and failing in their duties, what can be done, if anything, about those without the skills or intelligence to think critically but tend to believe what they are being fed? Example: Jan. 6th.