More on Horseshoe Theory

 

So, is horseshoe theory -- the idea and the far right and the far left loop backward to meet each other -- true?  Looking at how many things I have generally considered left wing -- living off the grid, organic food, distrust of big pharma and big money, etc -- clearly there is something to it.  

At the same time, there are differences.  I was fascinated, for instance by this article, discussing how J. Edgar Hoover's FBI targeted not only the Civil Rights and anti-war movements, but also the Ku Klux Klan and other groups on the far right. Hoover, who presumably had experience to know, did not regard Communists and Klansmen as mirror opposites.  Communists might be persuaded by histories, pamphlets, and serious intellectual discussion.  Klansmen could not intellectually or emotionally grasp anything above the comic book level.

But I think there are other differences as well. This is my latest attempt to understand the difference between left and right, authoritarian and non-authoritarian:

	Left Thinks in terms of oppressors and oppressed	Right Thinks in terms of in-groups and out-groups
Authoritarian Aggressive and punitive toward disfavored groups	Seeks revolt on behalf of oppressed to pull down and punish oppressors	Seeks to subordinate, exclude, scapegoat, or punish out groups
Non-authoritarian Not aggressive or punitive toward disfavored groups	Seeks to include oppressed groups in the larger society on an equal basis	Seeks to build strong communities within their group. Outsiders may form their own communities.

Not here that I am expressing these viewpoints mostly from the perspective a the dominant group. Oppressed or out-groups (from the perspective of the dominant group) can weigh in at many different places in this table.  

They may ally with liberals (the non-authoritarian left), seeking to be included on an equal basis with the dominant group.  This might be considered the hopeful mode.

They may ally with the authoritarian left, seeking to pull down and punish the dominant group. This might be considered the angry or frustrated mode.

They may make a separate conservatism (non-authoritarian right), forming their own tight-knit communities and community ties separate and apart from the dominant community.

On the one hand, one might think oppressed groups could not possibly find a home in the far right, which is actively aggressive and punitive toward them.  On the other hand the whole concept that oppressor/oppressed and in-group/out-group are different approaches presupposes the perspective of the dominant group. From the perspective of the excluded or oppressed group, there is no difference.  The in-group and the oppressed group are one and the same.  From that perspective, the difference between between being aggressive and punitive towards outsiders because they are oppressors, and being aggressive and punitive towards outsiders simply because they are outsiders becomes more a matter of emphasis than substance.  The horseshoe becomes a full circle.

I also believe that the oppressor/oppressed distinction of the left carries more moral weight than the us/them distinction of the right. That may be why so many authoritarians of the right are eager to adopt the status of victim of oppression.*  

It does not explain so well why so many members of the left seem to be moving over to the authoritarian right.

PS:  I will also add that conservatives might critique my dichotomy between the liberal and authoritarian left and say that they are the true liberals, wanting to build a color blind society, while liberal activists use the language of inclusion to stigmatize and discriminate against white people.  To this I would reply that yes, lines are not always sharp and clear, that pressing too far for inclusion can tend to devalue and exclude traditionally dominant groups.  I would also say that such discrimination falls well short of, say, campus activists barring Jews from entry unless they renounce Zionism and the like. I would also say that conservative groups who focus on their own community and assume that others can do the same are being naive (sometimes willfully so) about the disadvantages minority/oppressed communities may face and ignoring the extent to which this has the real world effect of subordinating and excluding disadvantaged groups.

________________________________________
*Another reason may be the distinction above -- the whole idea of applying the rules to one's in-group is oppression.