Horseshoe theory

The horse shoe metaphor was used as early as during the Weimar Republic to describe the ideology of the Black Front.[6]

Later use of the term in political theory is seen in Jean-Pierre Faye's 2002 book Le Siècle des idéologies.[7] Others have attributed the theory as having come from the American sociologists Seymour Martin Lipset and Daniel Bell, and the Pluralist school.[8] Because the theory is also popular in Germany, a co-contributor to this theory is said to be the German political scientist Eckhard Jesse.[9]

In a 2006 book, political scientist Jeff Taylor wrote: "It may be more useful to think of the Left and the Right as two components of populism, with elitism residing in the Center. The political spectrum may be linear, but it is not a straight line. It is shaped like a horseshoe".[10]

In 2006, the term was used when discussing a resurgent hostility towards Jews and new antisemitism from both the far-left and the far-right.[11]

In a 2008 essay, Josef Joffe, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank,[12] wrote:

Will globalization survive the gloom? The creeping revolt against globalization actually preceded the Crash of '08. Everywhere in the West, populism began to show its angry face at mid-decade. The two most dramatic instances were Germany and Austria, where populist parties scored big with a message of isolationism, protectionism and redistribution. In Germany, it was left-wing populism ("Die Linke"); in Austria it was a bunch of right-wing parties that garnered almost 30% in the 2008 election. Left and right together illustrated once more the "horseshoe" theory of modern politics: As the iron is bent backward, the two extremes almost touch.[13]

In 2015, reformist Muslim Maajid Nawaz invoked the horseshoe theory while lamenting a common tendency on the far-left and far-right towards the compiling and publishing of "lists of political foes",[14] adding:

As the political horseshoe theory attributed to Jean-Pierre Faye highlights, if we travel far-left enough, we find the very same sneering, nasty and reckless bully-boy tactics used by the far-right. The two extremes of the political spectrum end up meeting like a horseshoe, at the top, which to my mind symbolizes totalitarian control from above. In their quest for ideological purity, Stalin and Hitler had more in common than modern neo-Nazis and far-left agitators would care to admit.[14]

In a recent article for Eurozine titled "How Right is the Left?",[15] Kyrylo Tkachenko wrote about the common cause found recently between the far-left and the far-right in Ukraine:

The pursuit of a common political agenda is a trend discernible at both extremes of the political spectrum. Though this phenomenon manifests itself primarily through content-related overlaps, I believe there are good reasons to refer to it as a red-brown alliance. Its commonalities are based on shared anti-liberal resentment. Of course, there remain palpable differences between far left and the far right. But we should not underestimate the dangers already posed by these left-right intersections, as well as what we might lose if the resentment-driven backlash becomes mainstream.

The horseshoe theory has been criticized by those from both ends of the political spectrum who oppose being grouped with those they consider to be their polar opposites, while also being criticized as an oversimplification of political ideologies and ignorant of fundamental differences between them.

Simon Choat, a senior lecturer in political theory at Kingston University, criticizes horseshoe theory from a leftist perspective. He argues that far-left and far-right ideologies only share similarities in the vaguest sense in that they both oppose the liberal democratic status quo, but the two sides both have very different reasons and very different aims for doing so. Choat uses the issue of globalization as an example. Both the far-left and the far-right attack neoliberal globalization and its elites, but have conflicting views on who those elites are and conflicting reasons for attacking them.

For the left, the problem with globalisation is that it has given free rein to capital and entrenched economic and political inequality. The solution is therefore to place constraints on capital and/or to allow people to have the same freedom of movement currently given to capital, goods, and services. They want an alternative globalisation. For the right, the problem with globalisation is that it has corroded supposedly traditional and homogeneous cultural and ethnic communities – their solution is therefore to reverse globalisation, protecting national capital and placing further restrictions on the movement of people.[16]

Choat also argues that although proponents of the horseshoe theory may cite examples of alleged history of collusion between fascists and communists, those on the far-left usually oppose the rise of far-right or fascist regimes in their countries. Instead, he argues that it has been centrists who have supported far-right and fascist regimes that they prefer in power over socialist ones.[16]

• Quotations related to Horseshoe theory at Wikiquote