The horse shoe theory - slightly different way to visualize political alignment

[vi edit]

I haven't really seen this posted before, but it's a great visual on how I think of the spectrum of political alignment. I really do think that the far left and far right have similar mindsets and this is a way that sort of represents that.

 

[Jaskalas]

Where do Neocons and Libertarians fit into it?

it's a great visual on how I think of the spectrum of political alignment

I disagree. It assumes only a single vector of political alignment. Where there's a distinct social / economic split.

Now if you made it a circle... with Wall Street at the top... with the remaining labels being replaced clockwise it'd read Neocon, Libertarian, Progressive, and Blue Dog.

 

[Commodus]

I've heard of it being described more as a circle, where the far left and far right are nearly indistinguishable -- it's just a question of how they justify their authoritarianism. The far left tends to be anti-religious and obsessed with absolute equality (for the people, not the leaders), while the far right is ultra-religious and achieves that forced equality simply out of a desire to stifle dissent.

I do agree with jaskalas that there are differences in social and economic views, though. You can have someone who's socially liberal but economically conservative (libertarians in the US sometimes don't fit this mold, I would add), or someone who espouses hyper-traditional values but believes in social democracy.

 

[crashtech]

I think the good old x-y axis chart with left-right as x and authoritarian-libertarian as y do a better job.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Where do Neocons and Libertarians fit into it?

Neocons and Libertarians are looped political groups.

Neocons go right(moderate), then end up far left(ultras). While, Libertarians go left(moderate), but end up far right(ultras).

 

[UglyCasanova]

I haven't really seen this posted before, but it's a great visual on how I think of the spectrum of political alignment. I really do think that the far left and far right have similar mindsets and this is a way that sort of represents that.

I'd agree with this, although most people have different views about different topics so it would describe topic position better than individual personal position I guess. The far left and right do seem to approach each other, I don't know if I'd say they ever actually meet or not, so horseshoe sounds good.

 

[Blackjack200]

I don't think anyone that has any kind of serious understanding of the political right and left could think that they're close. The hard right supports national imperialism, misogyny, racism, chauvinism, authoritarianism, etc. while the hard left is completely opposed to all those things.

 

[interchange]

I think it better captures the distance between personality types aligned with each position, but says little about underlying ideology. This whole thing is terribly confounded, though, as each political party carries an organizational affiliation that has little to do with actual underlying ideology, and members are themselves poorly aware of their underlying beliefs. It's a shame because people profess to be so different and unrelatable based on practically nothing at all.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think anyone that has any kind of serious understanding of the political right and left could think that they're close. The hard right supports national imperialism, misogyny, racism, chauvinism, authoritarianism, etc. while the hard left is completely opposed to all those things.

I think a good example would be Stalin and Hitler. Communism represents an ultra-left ideology and Nazism an ultra-right one. (no conservatives, Nazism was not leftist) When put next to each other, were Hitler and Stalin really that different? I don't think so.

 

[vi edit]

I think it better captures the distance between personality types aligned with each position, but says little about underlying ideology. This whole thing is terribly confounded, though, as each political party carries an organizational affiliation that has little to do with actual underlying ideology, and members are themselves poorly aware of their underlying beliefs. It's a shame because people profess to be so different and unrelatable based on practically nothing at all.

I think that's really it. The left and right are are very opposite in personalities up to a point, and then start to spin back into a similarity. This isn't a precision scatter plot like the X/Y axis chart. It's more of the underlying mentality rather than positions.

 

[werepossum]

I think a good example would be Stalin and Hitler. Communism represents an ultra-left ideology and Nazism an ultra-right one. (no conservatives, Nazism was not leftist) When put next to each other, were Hitler and Stalin really that different? I don't think so.

Hmm, maybe there's another reason why Communism and National Socialism are so similar . . .
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
1. We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.

2. We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.

6. The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

22. We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think a good example would be Stalin and Hitler. Communism represents an ultra-left ideology and Nazism an ultra-right one. (no conservatives, Nazism was not leftist) When put next to each other, were Hitler and Stalin really that different? I don't think so.

I don't know early Soviet history that well, but if Stalin used the political message of the left to help maintain control of the country, I don't think that means he was "leftist" any more than Hitler calling his party "National Socialists" was leftist.

The bottom line is, I don't think if you look at the political goals of someone that calls themselves a leftist today (Matt Bruenig, Freddie DeBoer, Glenn Greenwald, etc.) that they look anything like the political goals of the hard right.

The closest thing I've seen to horseshoe theory is a surprising number journalists that consider themselves to be libertarians retweeting leftists. I don't know what it's all about, I suspect that they just don't think about the contradiction.

 

[fskimospy]

Hmm, maybe there's another reason why Communism and National Socialism are so similar . . .

It may shock you to learn this, but what Hitler and the Nazis said they were going to do and what Hitler and the Nazis actually did were two very different things. Hahaha.

For example:

9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

lol.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Nazi Germany's economy was basically defined by war profiteering by powerful business interests, supported by the state.

23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press.

lol.

In practice, Nazism was an ultra-right political and economic framework and this is not seriously contested by any mainstream historians. There have been attempts in recent years by conservative commentators to change that because naturally the incredible evil of Nazism makes conservatism look bad, but nobody's actually fooled by that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Let me guess though, this is all part of a liberal conspiracy to trick you into accepting that Nazis were ultra conservative.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know early Soviet history that well, but if Stalin used the political message of the left to help maintain control of the country, I don't think that means he was "leftist" any more than Hitler calling his party "National Socialists" was leftist.

I think they show how people at the extremes of both ideologies bend towards authoritarianism. The more radical your policy proposals the more power you're going to need to implement them (usually). That naturally bends towards authoritarian government. If you're going to abolish private property and send everyone to work in factories or on collective farms you're going to need a lot of state power to do it. If you're going to turn your country into state-corporate fiefdoms powered by slave labor you're going to need a lot of state power too.

The bottom line is, I don't think if you look at the political goals of someone that calls themselves a leftist today (Matt Bruenig, Freddie DeBoer, Glenn Greenwald, etc.) that they look anything like the political goals of the hard right.

Well I think it's important to note the distinction between 'leftist' and 'hard right'. Bernie Sanders is certainly very leftist by American standards but on a world perspective he's not nearly so far to the left. America's conservatives on the other hand are about as far to the right as anything that exists in a developed nation. So yes, I agree conservatives are (generally) more authoritarian than liberals in America today but I don't think that's due to anything inherent to left/right ideology, they're just much further along in their radicalization.

The closest thing I've seen to horseshoe theory is a surprising number journalists that consider themselves to be libertarians retweeting leftists. I don't know what it's all about, I suspect that they just don't think about the contradiction.

I think that the term 'libertarian' should probably be retired in American discourse. It means nothing anymore.

 

[interchange]

I think that the term 'libertarian' should probably be retired in American discourse. It means nothing anymore.

We ought to have some language to describe those far away from authoritarianism, but I agree with your suggestion because it is hardly ever recognized that there is a distinction between libertarian and the libertarian party.

I find it interesting that the original parties were Federalist and Democratic-Republic -- and a bit ironic that both the Democratic and Republican parties today are far more federalist than the Federalist party was in the beginning.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think they show how people at the extremes of both ideologies bend towards authoritarianism. The more radical your policy proposals the more power you're going to need to implement them (usually). That naturally bends towards authoritarian government. If you're going to abolish private property and send everyone to work in factories or on collective farms you're going to need a lot of state power to do it. If you're going to turn your country into state-corporate fiefdoms powered by slave labor you're going to need a lot of state power too.



Well I think it's important to note the distinction between 'leftist' and 'hard right'. Bernie Sanders is certainly very leftist by American standards but on a world perspective he's not nearly so far to the left. America's conservatives on the other hand are about as far to the right as anything that exists in a developed nation. So yes, I agree conservatives are (generally) more authoritarian than liberals in America today but I don't think that's due to anything inherent to left/right ideology, they're just much further along in their radicalization.



I think that the term 'libertarian' should probably be retired in American discourse. It means nothing anymore.

I think that's all fair, but I'd point out that there's a difference between saying that hard right and hard left theory would both require a powerful state, and saying that there are actual people advocating for that. For example, is there a an analogue on the left to Trump, Le Pen, or Richard Spencer? Even internationally I'm not aware of any. For Example Corbyn is maybe the highest profile "hard left" politician in Europe, and he isn't looking for a powerful state.

 

[fskimospy]

We ought to have some language to describe those far away from authoritarianism, but I agree with your suggestion because it is hardly ever recognized that there is a distinction between libertarian and the libertarian party.

I find it interesting that the original parties were Federalist and Democratic-Republic -- and a bit ironic that both the Democratic and Republican parties today are far more federalist than the Federalist party was in the beginning.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'Federalist', as 'federalist' simply means supporting a system of dual sovereignty between regional and central governments. I assume you mean stronger federal power? If so that's complicated from my knowledge (which isn't that great). After all, the Federalist party was basically founded around the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, whose view on the powers of the president are basically those of an elected king. So while maybe the scope of the federal government is larger than anything they would have envisioned, in the action of the Federal government is substantially more restrained than Hamilton would have had it be.

 

[interchange]

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'Federalist', as 'federalist' simply means supporting a system of dual sovereignty between regional and central governments. I assume you mean stronger federal power? If so that's complicated from my knowledge (which isn't that great). After all, the Federalist party was basically founded around the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, whose view on the powers of the president are basically those of an elected king. So while maybe the scope of the federal government is larger than anything they would have envisioned, in the action of the Federal government is substantially more restrained than Hamilton would have had it be.

You're right. It's another poorly defined political word. But the distinction between parties was neither the general support of a federalist organization of government nor that of a democratically elected republic but rather the relative strength and centralization of the federal government, so that is the difference I was highlighting.

 

[Jaskalas]

The closest thing I've seen to horseshoe theory is a surprising number journalists that consider themselves to be libertarians retweeting leftists. I don't know what it's all about, I suspect that they just don't think about the contradiction.

Using Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul as examples... I'd say the primary difference between the two is economics.
They'd be joined on civil liberties I think...

 

[fskimospy]

You're right. It's another poorly defined political word. But the distinction between parties was neither the general support of a federalist organization of government nor that of a democratically elected republic but rather the relative strength and centralization of the federal government, so that is the difference I was highlighting.

Yes I would agree that the federal government's overall power is much larger than in the past although I would say in recent years the federal government has become paralyzed by political partisanship, meaning it is increasingly unable to use that power, which the states then naturally pick back up.

 

[nickqt]

It may shock you to learn this, but what Hitler and the Nazis said they were going to do and what Hitler and the Nazis actually did were two very different things. Hahaha.

For example:

lol.

Nazi Germany's economy was basically defined by war profiteering by powerful business interests, supported by the state.

lol.

In practice, Nazism was an ultra-right political and economic framework and this is not seriously contested by any mainstream historians. There have been attempts in recent years by conservative commentators to change that because naturally the incredible evil of Nazism makes conservatism look bad, but nobody's actually fooled by that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



Let me guess though, this is all part of a liberal conspiracy to trick you into accepting that Nazis were ultra conservative.

Don't forget that the Nazis outlawed labor unions, and jailed socialists.

But Hitler demanded equal rights for all citizens (before gassing socialists, gypsies, jews, homosexuals)!

 

[UglyCasanova]

I think that's all fair, but I'd point out that there's a difference between saying that hard right and hard left theory would both require a powerful state, and saying that there are actual people advocating for that. For example, is there a an analogue on the left to Trump, Le Pen, or Richard Spencer? Even internationally I'm not aware of any. For Example Corbyn is maybe the highest profile "hard left" politician in Europe, and he isn't looking for a powerful state.

You're saying there isn't people on the far left advocating for a powerful state??

 

[bshole]

Now if you made it a circle... with Wall Street at the top...

----taking a shit on the remaining labels.

 

[Jaskalas]

----taking a shit on the remaining labels.

Implicating those closest to Wall Street as participating in bipartisan corruption, and being entirely uninterested in civil liberties.
I suppose others would define "center" as something else, but terrible policies from the Bush / Obama eras were bipartisan.
Blue Dogs would cross party lines to do something both Progressives and Libertarians reject.

 

[woolfe9998]

Implicating those closest to Wall Street as participating in bipartisan corruption, and being entirely uninterested in civil liberties.
I suppose others would define "center" as something else, but terrible policies from the Bush / Obama eras were bipartisan.
Blue Dogs would cross party lines to do something both Progressives and Libertarians reject.

There is no essential connection between corruption and "centrism." You're confusing something that is basically non-partisan with being "bi-partisan." Corrupt pols and their enablers don't care about political ideology. They only care about self-interest. Self-interest as a motive can be cloaked as left, right or center.

Similarly, being anti-corruption isn't an essential function of ideology. In theory, those on the right want to reduce corruption by weakening government, while those on the left want to reduce it by improving government. The problem is all too often these stances are inauthentic.