startuplobi.blogg.se

Critics of the theory tend to point out that any seeming convergence on political positions between the far left and far right-such as critiques of liberal democracy, globalization, and market-based solutions to social problems-is superficial, masking far deeper and divergent ideological and policy preferences. The idea of the political horseshoe has long been criticized both for its lack of intellectual rigor and for its weaponization by centrists to discredit their opponents, mostly by those on the left who could be compared to the conservatives they ostensibly oppose. The horseshoe theory of politics was introduced by French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye, who believed that the political ideological spectrum-traditionally construed as a linear progression from some form of socialism or democratic collectivism through a bourgeois-liberal center and on to some form of totalitarianism or fascism-was not a straight line between ever-more-distant political positions but rather something like a horseshoe, with the extremes bending almost magnetically into conjunction with each other.īased on his observation of the alignment of fascist and communist parties in early 1930s German domestic politics and then on the Nazi-Soviet alignment in the international sphere, perhaps best embodied by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, he believed that the political extremes have much more in common than a traditional interpretation of the political spectrum might suggest. politics, where relying on simple notions of “left” and “right” or “conservative” and “progressive” no longer serves a useful heuristic for understanding political developments. Rather, it has everything to do with the fraught state of U.S. This doesn’t have much to do with ideological symmetry, however, or even Russia or Ukraine, for that matter. Although historically maligned, the theory seems to hold remarkably well when it comes to U.S. What we seem to be seeing is a modern-day version of the horseshoe theory of politics, where the far left and far right find themselves in uncanny alignment.

government seizing Russian oligarchs’ assets.Īll of these developments highlight a bizarre alliance between the two ends of the political spectrum. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib as well as the far-right fringe of the Republican Party in opposing the U.S. Ilhan Omar and Cori Bush against banning Russian fossil fuels even more surprisingly, Omar and Bush are joined by so-called squad members Reps. In Congress, seven of the most fervent conservative Trump supporters voted alongside progressive champions Reps. Online, armies of left- and right-wing accounts find fault with Ukraine’s politics, policies, and president. Left-wing sources-such as Jacobin, New Left Review, and Democracy Now!-have hewed to a party line that blames NATO expansion for Russia’s invasion and opposes military aid to Ukraine. President Donald Trump as a model of level-headed geopolitical statesmanship for his opposition to arming Ukraine. Meanwhile, the luminary of the American intellectual left, Noam Chomsky, has invoked former U.S. Other right-wing figures regularly spew out anti-Ukrainian disinformation and rail against sending heavy weapons to the country. Tucker Carlson, the face of Fox News and host of the most popular show on cable news in the United States, has been spouting pro-Kremlin talking points for months (and is frequently rebroadcasted on Russian state television). President Joe Biden, have thrown their support behind Ukraine, many on the left and right alike have rushed to defend Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime or, at the very least, have urged the United States not to intervene in Ukraine’s defense.

Although the majority of the American public, led by U.S. 24, the discourse surrounding the war that has emerged in the United States has created strange bedfellows. Since Russia attacked Ukraine, unprovoked, on Feb.