Horseshoe theory: why the extremes seem to touch

We have all heard the expression that extremes meet, speaking in contexts related to political ideology.

But not everyone knows the rationale behind this claim. One of the models that support it is that of the horseshoe theory, which will be the central theme of this article, so that we can better understand its origin, its characteristics and implications.

• Related article: "What is Political Psychology?"

What is the horseshoe theory?

The horseshoe theory is a model that is framed within political science, although also outside of it, in the most popular circles, to imply that, within the distribution of different political ideologies, the further two opposing positions move away from the center, paradoxically, the more things they will begin to have in common.

The simile is based on the shape of a horse shoe, creating a kind of unfinished oval at the bottom. If we attribute political positions to this figure, we could place the center at the top, and the left and right on each side, respectively.

By following each of the two paths, we observe that, the more the thought is polarized, following the The trajectory of this element, which gives its name to the horseshoe theory, the closer are, physically, the two tips. These would represent precisely the extreme left and the extreme right, just in the part where the oval is incomplete.

This peculiar way of resembling political positions with an object that has little to do with but whose shape serves to illustrate the idea that is to be expressed, we owe it to Jean-Pierre Faye, writer and philosopher from France. It was in his work "The century of ideology", published in 2002, when he mentioned the theory of the horseshoe to explain this phenomenon.

In this work, in addition, he talks about the relationships that existed between totalitarian ideologies that emerged in the twentieth century, as was the Soviet regime, on the extreme left, supported by the theses of Karl Marx, or Nazism, on the extreme right, whose philosophical basis, in part, has been related to the author Friedrich Nietzsche.

However, it is not the only origin attributed to the horseshoe theory. Some sources suggest that this simile is actually very old and was already used in the time of the Weimar Republic, between 1918 and 1933, to talk about a political faction with extreme ideologies, the Black Front, and its similarities with other groups, also radicals, but of opposite ideology.

In a more recent stage, different sociologists used this model to explain the coincidences between opposing ideological positions. The German Eckhard Jesse, on the one hand, or the Americans Daniel Bell and Seymour Martin Lipset, on the other, were some of the authors who worked with the horseshoe theory.

The horseshoe theory in current politics

If we come to the present moment, already in the 21st century, we can find new authors who in some way continue to use the horseshoe theory. Jeffrey Taylor, an American political scientist, is one of them. For Taylor, the continuum in which the different ideologies are grouped can be placed in a horseshoe figure, leaving the elites in the center and populism, either to the left or to the right, at the extremes.

As an example to illustrate his reasoning, this author spoke of how anti-Semitism was resurfacing in recent times from very different, and indeed opposite, positions. These positions would come from the extreme right sectors, on the one hand, and from the extreme left, from the other, thus reflecting the horseshoe theory we were talking about.

For his part, Josef Joffe, the editor of the German publication, Die Zeit, talks about the resurgence of populist political parties in the wake of the crisis of 2008, especially in countries such as Germany and Austria, highlighting that these groups have experienced significant growth from both the left and the right.

Joffe points out that, on occasions, political parties of a populist nature, of the extreme left on the one hand and the extreme right on the other, share certain features in their ideology, such as protectionist economic policies or isolationism from other nations and organizations international This author also graphically points out that when the iron of the horseshoe is twisted, the points get closer and closer.

These are not the only contemporary analysts who use the horseshoe theory to explain current phenomena. Maajid Usman Nawaz, an activist against Islamist extremism, denounces the aggressive strategies used by both groups more heeled to the right and those on the left. He mentions the creation of lists of political enemies and gives the example of the similarities between Nazi Germany and the USSR.

Another author, Kyrylo Tkachenko, compares the far-right and far-left groups that have emerged in Ukraine in recent times, which have factors in common such as their opposition to liberalism. In addition, he warns of the danger posed by a possible alignment between said opposing groups, if they were to achieve a position of sufficient strength.

• You may be interested in: "Cognitive schemas: how is our thinking organized?"

Criticisms of the horseshoe theory

Although the horseshoe theory, as we have seen, has been reasonably popular and has been used by many authors to support different observed political phenomena, The reality is that not everyone approves of this comparison, and other analysts prefer to use other models, since they are not convinced by the simile of the curve that brings the extremes.

Many of these criticisms, as is logical, appear on the part of the political groups themselves that are located in the most polarized places, that is, the ultra-left and the extreme right, who in no way conceive the possibility of sharing part of their ideology precisely with those who are furthest from their position politics.

The British Simon Choat, a professor at Kingston University, represents one of the most active voices in criticizing the horseshoe theory. This author positions himself on the left of the political spectrum, and from there, he assures that all these apparent similarities that can be seen on both sides of the horseshoe are generalities and do not have a solid base on which to sustain.

He gives the example of shared hatred towards neoliberal elites, since he considers that there is a fundamental factor that differentiates both groups, and it is the identification that each one performs on said elites, which is totally different and therefore does not justify this illusory rapprochement between group positions so radically opposites.

Another example that Choat uses to dismantle the horseshoe theory is the opposition of the extreme left and the extreme right to globalism. Although it may seem that both sectors agree on this issue, the motivations are very different. According to this author, the group furthest to the right would justify it because of the danger it poses to national identity, its culture and its traditions.

On the other hand, groups on the left would oppose globalization for very different reasons, which have to do with the possible socioeconomic inequalities that this phenomenon can cause in the population. We observe, with this example, the reasoning that Simon Choat uses to criticize the use of the horseshoe theory, which he considers as too superficial a thought.

Alternative to the horseshoe theory

We have already seen that some authors consider that the horseshoe theory is not reasoning valid because it lacks sufficient depth to substantiate the phenomenon explain. In contrast to this model, there are others that, for some people, have greater validity.

It is the case of known as the political compass. This model uses two coordinate axes to be able to place an individual or a group, according to their ideology, within the quadrant. Although there are different versions, the liberal-authoritarian continuum is usually used in one of the axes, and in the other, left and right.

Contrary to what happened with the horseshoe theory, in the quadrant that results from the political compass, there is no approaches between the left and right groups, beyond those that are located in the central positions of the quadrant. Therefore, according to this model, the most extreme positions would be further and further away, and not closer, as suggested by the horseshoe model.

In any case, they are different tools, and some authors will show preference over one while others will do the same over the other.