In popular discourse, the horseshoe theory asserts that advocates of the far-left and the far-right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear continuum of the political spectrum, closely resemble each other, analogous to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together. The theory is attributed to the French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye in his 1972 book , in relation to Otto Strasser.
Proponents point to a number of real and perceived similarities between the two extremes, such as tendencies to see politics in unambiguous and stereotypical terms; an "us vs. them" view of the world; holding confidently on to simplified views of the world; distrusting "authorities" and "elites"; and intense hostility towards those who hold other views. Peer-reviewed research on the subject have found mixed support for horseshoe theory.
Origin The horseshoe metaphor was used during the Weimar Republic to describe the ideology of the Black Front. The later use of the term in political theory was seen in . Faye's book discussed the use of ideologies (he said that ideology is a pair of Greek words that were joined in French) that he argued are rooted in philosophy by totalitarian regimes with specific reference to Friedrich Nietzsche, Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx, and Joseph Stalin; for instance, Faye used the horseshoe metaphor to describe the political position of German political parties, from the Communist Party of Germany to the Nazi Party, in 1932.
Others have attributed the theory, also called the centrist/extremist theory and sometimes referred to as the Pluralist School, as having come from the American sociologists Seymour Martin Lipset and Daniel Bell, and others who became part of the neoconservative movement in the United States. According to critics, who formed complex social movement theories in response, horseshoe theory is a legacy of Cold War liberal politics. Because the theory is also popular in Germany, a co-contributor to the theory is the German political scientist Eckhard Jesse. The horseshoe theory is mentioned critically in the article.
Modern use In his 2006 book, Where Did the Party Go?, the American 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." Taylor previously explored the concept in his M.A. thesis A Common Enemy: Populists of the Left and Populists of the Right Against Elitists of the Center (University of Missouri-Columbia, 1991, pp. 109–110) and then in his Ph.D. dissertation From Radical to Respectable (University of Missouri-Columbia, 1997, pp. 481–482). In the same year, the term was used in discussing a resurgent hostility toward Jews and a new antisemitism from both the far left and the far right. In an essay from 2008, Josef Joffe, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, an American conservative think tank, wrote:
Will globalisation survive the gloom? The creeping revolt against globalisation 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 (""); 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.
In a 2015 article for The Daily Beast, "The Left's Witch Hunt Against Muslims", the reformist Muslim Maajid Nawaz invoked the horseshoe theory while lamenting what he perceived to be a common tendency on both extremes toward blacklisting, such as the McCarthyist compiling and publishing of "lists of our political foes". He wrote:
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 symbolises 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.
In a 2018 article for Eurozine, "How Right Is the Left?", political scientist Kyrylo Tkachenko outlined his view that a common cause had emerged recently between both extremes in Ukraine. He said:
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.
In "Let's Play Horseshoe Theory", a 2021 article in Reason, a US libertarian magazine, its editor-in-chief Katherine Mangu-Ward wrote:
The [horseshoe] theory is typically used to explain why 20th century communists and fascists seemed to have so much in common, though it likely predates the last century. But in the United States in 2021, a softer version of this iron law is at play, with the centre-left and the centre-right mushily converging toward expensive authoritarian policies that look astonishingly similar despite their supposedly opposite goals. Still a horseshoe, but more like one of the marshmallow ones you can find in bowls of Lucky Charms.
In a December 2022 article for The Atlantic, "The Crunchy-to-Alt-Right Pipeline", examining the connections between "natural-food-and-body community and white-power and militant-right online spaces", historian Kathleen Belew wrote that an examination of documents connected with the White power movement indicated that a horseshoe is not quite right as a visual metaphor for the relationship of the far-left and the far-right; that, in fact, the archive showed that it was more like a circle, at least in the specific case she examined. The theory has also been cited when referring to the support given to the Russian invasion of Ukraine by notable American far-right and far-left groups. The probability of autocratisation in the year following an election shows a horseshoe behaviour along the economic left–right axis, but not along the cultural dimension.
In February 2024, the far-right British former BNP leader Nick Griffin endorsed far-left Workers Party of Britain leader George Galloway, urging voters to 'stick two fingers up to the rotten political elite and their fake news media cronies'. The Spectator described this as the perfect example of horseshoe theory. George Galloway ended up losing his seat.
Antisemitism and horseshoe theory A 2024 study by Hannes Zacher and Meir Shemla examined political attitudes toward Israel in Germany following the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas. The authors found evidence consistent with Horseshoe theory, with individuals at both the far-left and far-right ends of the political spectrum expressing more negative attitudes toward Israel than those with moderate political views. The study also reported that stronger anti-Israel attitudes were associated, in some cases, with higher levels of antisemitic beliefs. However, the authors emphasised that criticism of Israel does not necessarily constitute antisemitism, and that the relationship varies depending on the nature and intensity of the views expressed. A publication by the United States Department of State argues that antisemitism occurs across the political spectrum, including on the far right, far left, and among extremist ideological and religious groups. It states that while right-wing antisemitism has historically been prominent, contemporary forms also appear in left-wing and anti-Zionist movements, as well as in some Islamist ideologies. The report highlights that these differing forms of antisemitism may draw on distinct narratives and justifications, but can converge in hostility toward Jewish people and institutions.
In an opinion piece for Jewish News Syndicate, Josh Warhit argues that, on the illiberal far right, Jewish identity is viewed as incompatible with notions of a fixed and unchanging nation, while on the illiberal far left, Jewish continuity is sometimes portrayed as conflicting with ideals of global progress toward a more uniform, universal collective. Though he contends that the Horseshoe theory is often used as an oversimplified explanation for antisemitism across the political spectrum. However, he maintains that while both far-left and far-right movements can produce similar anti-Jewish narratives, this framework overlooks broader ideological and historical factors. He suggests that antisemitism arises from deeper intellectual and cultural traditions within modern political thought, and that it can emerge not only at ideological extremes but also within mainstream liberal perspectives, particularly during periods of political and social instability.
In an article for Vision, Shai Hershel argues that Horseshoe theory oversimplifies the relationship between political extremes and antisemitism. The author contends that, although antisemitic rhetoric can appear on both the far right and far left, the underlying ideological motivations differ significantly and should not be treated as equivalent. The article highlights examples of contemporary figures such as Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson on the right, and Hasan Piker on the left, arguing that their statements illustrate how similar themes may emerge across the spectrum while rooted in distinct political frameworks. Hershel concludes that focusing solely on a “horseshoe” convergence risks obscuring the specific historical, cultural, and ideological sources of antisemitism in different political contexts.
Academic studies and criticism