The horseshoe theory: what does it consist of?

From the moment we are born, we are political subjects subsumed in the language of the society that adopts us. Politics is always present in our lives, for better or worse, whether we want it or not.

Concepts such as right, left, center, etc., are mentioned by a wide variety of theories to explain the world political spectrum. However, one of them, The horseshoe theory offers an interesting argument to understand the dynamics of the concept “politics”.

Next, we present what the horseshoe theory consists of.

The political extremes

In few circumstances political extremes are good. Although each one sells itself as the ideal to follow, what they actually hide is dogmatic affiliation. Each extreme has its own discourse or takes as a slogan one that adjusts to the illusions and, especially, the fears of the people they understand as a potential electorate.

According to the philosopher and fiction writer Jean-Pierre Faye, depending on the discursive position, polarities are established that “curve the argumentative space in the shape of a horseshoe,” in which the extremist and dogmatic discourses that fix their positions gravitate. The irony is that, although each speech is different, they could end up touching, As the saying goes “extremes touch”.

The horseshoe theory

Politics is conceived under the concepts of power and the public sphere to the polis that directly affect a society, that is, its citizens.

On the other hand, Rainer-Olaf Schultze, an expert in political science, states that Politics is the art of conducting public affairs and collective interests. However, history corroborates time and time again that the essential thing about politics is its obligatory reference to power and the decisions related to it.

The horseshoe theory states that the extreme right and the extreme left are similar. more than differentiated in certain ways, as close as the ends of a horse’s shoe. This simile also represents the political center at the top of the horseshoe; Following its oval shape we reach the “left” and “right” sides, until we reach their respective ends.

Similarities of the extremes

The political programs of the extreme right and the extreme left differ significantly, despite the fact that their goals converge on the same point: he can. To understand their similarities, it is best to first perform a contrast between right and left.

The right accepts social differences as natural and inevitable. Now, he understands that they would be minimized if individualism, freedom as a basis for the collective good, private property and a market free of intervention prevail.

The left is committed to state interventionism as a guarantor of equal opportunities, for which you need resources, which you usually obtain from high tax rates. It puts the individual in the background and understands that it is the collective that ultimately provides well-being.

totalitarianism

By postulating that extremes meet, the horseshoe theory highlights how the desire for power diminishes the differences between the programs of the extreme right and the extreme left, transforming their original interests towards obtaining force as a regulatory method to subjugate citizens. A society that they first had to seduce to choose only one of the two.

In extreme left dictatorships, such as Soviet communism, force, which is what gives power to power, is exercised to take control of economic resources. In general, They defend common objectives, among which two stand out: repeal capitalism and hand over power to the proletariat..

In far-right movements, whose most famous ideologies in recent history are fascism and Nazism, controlling the economy and putting it in a centralist position are two of its most urgent priorities, without the need to nationalize or expropriate private sector companies; They can even encourage them if they deem it appropriate.

Not very functional ideals

What the political extremes have in common, and what the horseshoe theory would be useful for, is to propose ideals so radical that they can hardly be functional. In his extremism, they tend to see the other as an enemy or incapable, so they are unlikely to negotiate with him, understanding that he may have something to contribute.

Therefore, When they govern, they usually do so only for one part of society, completely ignoring the other.. Furthermore, their ideals are usually very superficial, without taking into account the contradictions that they would really have to face if they looked more closely at the society they want to serve and not the one they want to govern.

You might be interested…