In popular discourse, the horseshoe theory asserts that 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.[1] The theory is attributed to the French philosopher and writer of fiction and poetry Jean-Pierre Faye in his 2002 book, Le Siècle des idéologies ("The Century of Ideologies").[2]

Proponents of horseshoe theory argue that the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center.

Several political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists have criticized the horseshoe theory.[3][4][5] Proponents point to a number of perceived similarities between extremes and allege that both have a tendency to support authoritarianism or totalitarianism; this does not appear to be supported by scholars in the field of political science, and the few peer-reviewed research on the subject is scarce, with existing studies and comprehensive reviews often finding only limited support and only under certain conditions, and that generally contradict the theory's central premises.[6][7][8]

Origin Edit

The horseshoe metaphor was used as early as during the Weimar Republic to describe the ideology of the Black Front.[9] The later use of the term in political theory was seen in Le Siècle des idéologies.[10] 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 and Adolf Hitler, and Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin;[11] 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.[1] 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, it is a legacy of Cold War liberal politics.[12] Because the theory is also popular in Germany, a co-contributor to the theory is the German political scientist Eckhard Jesse.[13]

Modern usage Edit

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."[14] 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.[15] In an essay from 2008, Josef Joffe, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, an American conservative think tank, wrote:

"Will globalization survive the gloom? The creeping revolt against globalization 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 ('Die Linke'); 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."[16]

In a 2015 article for The Daily Beast, "The Left's Witchunt Against Muslims", the reformist Muslim Maajid Nawaz invoked the horseshoe theory while lamenting 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 symbolizes 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."[17]

In a 2018 article for Eurozine, "How Right Is the Left?", political scientist Kyrylo Tkachenko wrote about the common cause found 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."[18]

In a 2021 Reason article, "Let's Play Horseshoe Theory", Katherine Mangu-Ward, the American libertarian magazine's editor-in-chief, 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 center-left and the center-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."[19]

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.[20] The theory has also been cited when referring to American far-right and far-left organizations both supporting Vladimir Putin in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[21] The probability of autocratization in the year after election shows a horseshoe behavior along the economic left–right axis but not along the cultural dimension.[22][23]

Academic studies and criticism Edit

The horseshoe theory does not enjoy wide support within academic circles; peer-reviewed research by political scientists on the subject is scarce, and existing studies and comprehensive reviews have often contradicted its central premises, or found only limited support for the theory under certain conditions.[6][8] A 2011 study about the far-left and the far-right within the context of the 2007 French presidential election concluded: "Divergent social and political logics explain the electoral support for these two candidates: their voters do not occupy the same political space, they do not have the same social background, and they do not hold the same values."[1] A 2012 study concluded: "The present results thus do not corroborate the idea that adherents to extreme ideologies on the left-wing and right-wing sides resemble each other but instead support the alternative perspective that different extreme ideologies attract different people. In other words, extremists should be distinguished on the basis of the ideology to which they adhere, and there is no universal extremist type that feels at home in any extreme ideology."[6] A 2019 study concluded that "our findings suggest that speaking of 'extreme left-wing values' or 'extreme right-wing values' may not be meaningful, as members of both groups are heterogeneous in the values that they endorse."[7] A 2022 study about antisemitism concluded: "On all items, the far left has lower agreement with these statements relative to moderates, and the far right has higher agreement with these statements compared to moderates. Contrary to a 'horseshoe' theory, the evidence reveals increasing antisemitism moving from left to right."[8] Paul H. P. Hanel, a research associate at the University of Essex, et al. summarized some of those studies. They wrote:

"Likewise, some even argue that all extremists, across the political left and right, in fact, support similar policies, in a view known as 'horseshoe theory'. However, not only do recent studies fail to support such beliefs, they also contradict them ... Van Hiel also found that left-wing respondents reported significantly lower endorsement of values associated with conservation, self-enhancement, and anti-immigration attitudes compared to both moderate and right-wing activists, with individuals on the right reporting greater endorsement of such values and attitudes ... Overall, van Hiel provided evidence demonstrating that Western European extremist groups are far from being homogenous, and left- and right-wing groups represent distinct ideologies."[7]

Several scholars dismissed the theory as an oversimplification and generalization that ignores their fundamental differences,[3][24] and have questioned the theory's general premises, citing significative differences of the left and right on the political spectrum and governance.[4][5] Chip Berlet, an expert on right-wing movements, has dismissed perceived far-left–far-right flirtations as an oversimplification of political ideologies, ignoring fundamental differences between them. In a 2000 book about the radical right in the United States, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, he and Matthew N. Lyons, another expert on right-wing movements, dismissed a Southern Poverty Law Center report that "relied heavily on centrist/extremist analysis", and those who saw the far-right's role, such as in the 1999 Seattle protests, as having had a major role, which they described as being false. Within the context of the anti-globalization movement, they also mentioned that those on the political left were concerned about the far-right infiltrating their own anti-WTO groups, which they characterized as very broad and also included centrist liberals and social democrats, and that those groups took the problem seriously because they did not want to be associated with "right-wing nationalists and bigots". Some, such as the Peoples' Global Action, amended their own manifestos to specifically reject any such alliances on principle.[3]

In a 2014 paper, Vassilis Pavlopoulos, a professor in social psychology at the University of Athens, argued: "The so-called centrist/extremist or horseshoe theory points to notorious similarities between the two extremes of the political spectrum (e.g., authoritarianism). It remains alive though many sociologists consider it to have been thoroughly discredited (Berlet & Lyons, 2000). Furthermore, the ideological profiles of the two political poles have been found to differ considerably (Pavlopoulos, 2013). The centrist/extremist hypothesis narrows civic political debate and undermines progressive organizing. Matching the neo-Nazi with the radical left leads to the legitimization of far-right ideology and practices."[5]

Simon Choat, a senior lecturer in political theory at Kingston University, has criticized the horseshoe theory. In a 2017 article for The Conversation, "'Horseshoe theory' is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common", he argues that far-left and far-right ideologies only share similarities in the vaguest sense, in that they both oppose the liberal democratic status quo, but that the two sides have very different reasons and very different aims for doing so.[25] Choat uses the issue of globalization as an example;[26] both the far-left and the far-right attack neoliberal globalization and its elites but have conflicting views on who those elites are and conflicting reasons for attacking them.[27] Additionally, Choat argues that although proponents of the horseshoe theory may cite examples of alleged history of collusion between fascists and communists,[28] those on the far-left usually oppose the rise of far-right or fascist regimes in their countries. Instead, he argues that it has been centrists who have supported far-right and fascist regimes that they prefer in power over socialist ones,[29] and that the horseshoe theory is biased towards centrists, who he says use it to smear or attack the left more than the right.[30] He cites the example of the 2016 United States presidential election and the 2017 French presidential election, in which supporters of Bernie Sanders and Jean-Luc Mélenchon were alleged to have preferred or voted for Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen.[31] In this sense, he argues that the horseshoe theory is used to engage in red-baiting or reductio ad Hitlerum, which allows them to "discredit the left while disavowing their own complicity with the far right."[24] Choat says that "it is patently absurd to compare Stalin to present-day leftists like Mélenchon or Corbyn",[24] and concludes: "If liberals genuinely want to understand and confront the rise of the far right, then rather than smearing the left they should perhaps reflect on their own faults."[24]

While this formal academic analysis is fairly recent, criticism of horseshoe theory and its antecedents is long-standing, and a frequent basis for criticism has been the tendency of an observer from one position to group opposing movements together. As early as 1938, Marxist theorist and politician Leon Trotsky wrote "Their Morals and Ours", which became the basis for his 1939 book, Their Morals and Ours: Marxist Versus Liberal Views on Morality. In the 1938 article, which was first published in the United States by the theoretical journal of the Socialist Workers Party of the International Left Opposition, he wrote:

"The fundamental feature of [arguments comparing disparate political movements] lies in their completely ignoring the material foundation of the various currents, that is, their class nature and by that token their objective historical role. Instead they evaluate and classify different currents according to some external and secondary manifestation ... To Hitler, liberalism and Marxism are twins because they ignore 'blood and honour'. To a democrat, fascism and Bolshevism are twins because they do not bow before universal suffrage ... Different classes in the name of different aims may in certain instances utilise similar means. Essentially it cannot be otherwise. Armies in combat are always more or less symmetrical; were there nothing in common in their methods of struggle they could not inflict blows upon each other."[32][33]

See also Edit

References Edit

  1. ^ a b c Mayer, Nonna (2011). "Why extremes don't meet: Le Pen and Besancenot Voters in the 2007 Presidential Election". French Politics, Culture & Society. New York: Berghahn Books. 29 (3): 101–120. doi:10.3167/fpcs.2011.290307. Retrieved 12 July 2023. A commonly received idea, one strengthened by the post-war debates about the nature of totalitarianism, is that 'extremes meet.' Rather than a straight line between the Left and Right poles, the political spectrum would look more like a circle, or a 'horseshoe,' a metaphor the philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye used to describe the position of German parties in 1932, from the Nazis to the Communists.
  2. ^ Encel, Frédéric; Thual, François (13 November 2004). "United States-Israel: A friendship that needs to be demystified". Le Figaro. Paris: Groupe Figaro. ISSN 1160-8811. Archived from the original on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 12 July 2023. Jean-Pierre Faye's famous horseshoe theory (according to which extremes meet) finds verification here more than in other places, and the two states of delirium often mingle and meet, unfortunately spreading beyond these extremist circles. But contrary to the legend deliberately maintained and/or the commonplace believed in good faith, Israel and the United States have not always been allies; on several occasions their relations have even been strained.
  3. ^ a b c Berlet, Chip; Lyons, Matthew N. (2008). Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press. p. 342. ISBN 978-1-57230-568-7. OCLC 43929926. Retrieved 12 July 2023 – via Internet Archive.
  4. ^ a b Đorić, Marija; Filipović, Miroslava (2010). "The Left or the Right: Old Paradigms and New Governments". Serbian Political Thought. Belgrade: Institute of Political Studies in Belgrade. 2 (1–2): 121–144. doi:10.22182/spt.2122011.8.
  5. ^ a b c Pavlopoulos, Vassilis (20 March 2014). "Politics, Economics, and the Far Right in Europe: A Social Psychological Perspective" (PDF). The Challenge of the Extreme Right in Europe: Past, Present, Future. London: Birkbeck, University of London. Retrieved 12 July 2023. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. ^ a b c Van Hiel, Alain (2012). "A Psycho-Political Profile of Party Activists and Left-Wing and Right-Wing Extremists". European Journal of Political Research. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. 51 (2): 166–203. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01991.x. hdl:1854/LU-2109499. ISSN 1475-6765.
  7. ^ a b c Hanel, Paul H. P.; Haddock, Geoffrey; Zarzeczna, Natalia (2019). "Sharing the Same Political Ideology Yet Endorsing Different Values: Left- and Right-Wing Political Supporters Are More Heterogeneous Than Moderates". Social Psychological and Personality Science. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. 10 (7): 874–882. doi:10.1177/1948550618803348. ISSN 1948-5506. S2CID 52246707.
  8. ^ a b c Hersh, Eitan; Royden, Laura (25 June 2022). "Antisemitic Attitudes Across the Ideological Spectrum". Political Research Quarterly. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications on behalf of the University of Utah. 76 (2): 697–711. doi:10.1177/10659129221111081. ISSN 1065-9129. S2CID 250060659.
  9. ^ Backes, Uwe (1989). Politischer Extremismus in demokratischen Verfassungsstaaten [Political Extremism in Democratic Constitutional States] (in German). Wiesbaden: Springer. pp. 251–252. ISBN 978-3-531-11946-5.
  10. ^ "Le Siècle des idéologies" [The Century of Ideologies]. (in French). Paris: Groupe Figaro. 22 December 2008. ISSN 1160-8811. Archived from the original on 15 December 2012. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
  11. ^ Colin, Armand; Faye, Jean-Pierre (1 October 1996). "Le siècle des idéologies (impression a la demande)" [The Century of Ideologies (print on demand)]. Le Hall du Livre NANCY (in French). Nancy. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
  12. ^ "Challenging Centrist/Extremist Theory". Somerville, Massachusetts: Political Research Associates. 1999. Archived from the original on 2 February 2009. Retrieved 12 July 2023. The language many people use to talk about right-wing groups and movements -- 'extremist,' 'lunatic fringe,['] 'radical right,' 'wing nuts,' -- and the idea of a political 'horseshoe' map where 'extremists of the left and right' merge, is a legacy of Centrist/Extremist Theory, sometimes called the Pluralist School. These ideas come from Lipset, Bell, and others who went on to form the neoconservative movement in the US. Many sociologists who study right wing movements consider Centrist/Extremist Theory to have been thoroughly discredited, yet it remains the primary model for public discussions, and influences major human relations groups in the US. As a reaction against Centrist/Extremist theories, several theoretical frameworks emerged: resource mobilization, political process model, political opportunity structures, new social movements theory, frame analysis, collective identities, etc. These can be lumped together under the name 'complex social movement theories.['] Complex social movement theories are highly critical of Centrist/Extremist Theory as a legacy of cold war liberal politics.
  13. ^ Schneider, Johannes (28 October 2019). "Das Hufeisen muss runter" [The Horseshoe Has to Come Off]. Die Zeit (in German). Hamburg: TIME Publishing Group. ISSN 0044-2070. Archived from the original on 17 February 2020. The horseshoe theory was mentioned critically in the article.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  14. ^ Taylor, Jeff (2006). Where Did the Party Go?. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press. p. 118. The concept first appeared in Taylor's 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).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  15. ^ Fleischer, Tzvi (31 October 2006). "The Political Horseshoe Again". Australia/Israel Review. Syndey: AIJAC. ISSN 0313-9727. Archived from the original on 16 May 2011. Retrieved 12 July 2023. I think Mr. Loewenstein has done a good job demonstrating why many people believe, as the 'political horseshoe' theory states, that there is a lot more common ground between the far left, where Loewenstein dwells politically, and the far right views of someone like Betty Luks than people on the left would care to admit.
  16. ^ Joffe, Josef (2 December 2008). "New Year's Essay 2009". Munich: Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. Archived from the original on 3 February 2009. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
  17. ^ Nawaz, Maajid (14 December 2015). "The left's witchunt against Muslims". The Daily Beast. New York: The Daily Beast Company. Archived from the original on 23 May 2018. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
  18. ^ Tkachenko, Kyrylo (15 May 2018). "How Right is the Left?". Eurozine. Vienna. ISSN 1684-4637. Archived from the original on 17 May 2018. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
  19. ^ Mangu-Ward, Katherine (13 September 2021). "Let's Play Horseshoe Theory". Reason. Los Angeles; New York: Reason Foundation. ISSN 1595-188X. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
  20. ^ Belew, Kathleen (14 December 2022). "The Crunchy-to-Alt-Right Pipeline". The Atlantic. Washington, D.C.: Atlantic Media. ISSN 2151-9463. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
  21. ^ Dutkiewicz, Jan (4 July 2022). "Why America's Far Right and Far Left Have Aligned Against Helping Ukraine". Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: The FP Group. ISSN 0015-7228. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
  22. ^ Lührmann, Anna; Lindberg, Staffan I.; Medzihorsky, Juraj (2021). "Walking the Talk: How to Identify Anti-Pluralist Parties" (PDF). 2021:116. Gothenburg: The Varietis of Democracy Institute. Retrieved 15 July 2023. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  23. ^ Lindberg, Staffan I.; Medzihorsky, Juraj (17 May 2023). "Walking the Talk: How to Identify Anti-Pluralist Parties". Party Politics. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. doi:10.1177/13540688231153092. hdl:2077/68137.
  24. ^ a b c d Choat, Simon (12 May 2017). "'Horseshoe theory' is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common". The Conversation. Melbourne. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2023.
  25. ^ Choat, Simon (12 May 2017). "'Horseshoe theory' is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common". The Conversation. Melbourne. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2023. Is there a more fundamental, ideological resonance between far left and far right? Again, only in the vaguest sense that both challenge the liberal-democratic status quo. But they do so for very different reasons and with very different aims. When fascists reject liberal individualism, it is in the name of a vision of national unity and ethnic purity rooted in a romanticised past; when communists and socialists do so, it is in the name of international solidarity and the redistribution of wealth.
  26. ^ Choat, Simon (12 May 2017). "'Horseshoe theory' is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common". The Conversation. Melbourne. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2023. Can we instead find convergence between far left and far right at the level of policy? It is true that both attack neoliberal globalisation and its elites. But there is no agreement between far left and far right over who counts as the 'elite', why they are a problem, and how to respond to them. When the billionaire real-estate mogul Donald Trump decries global elites, for example, he is either simply giving his audience what he thinks they want to hear or he is indulging in antisemitic dog-whistling.
  27. ^ Choat, Simon (12 May 2017). "'Horseshoe theory' is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common". The Conversation. Melbourne. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2023. For the left, the problem with globalisation is that it has given free rein to capital and entrenched economic and political inequality. The solution is therefore to place constraints on capital and/or to allow people to have the same freedom of movement currently given to capital, goods, and services. They want an alternative globalisation. For the right, the problem with globalisation is that it has corroded supposedly traditional and homogeneous cultural and ethnic communities – their solution is therefore to reverse globalisation, protecting national capital and placing further restrictions on the movement of people.
  28. ^ Choat, Simon (12 May 2017). "'Horseshoe theory' is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common". The Conversation. Melbourne. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2023. Fans of the horseshoe theory like to lend their views weight and credibility by pointing to the alleged history of collusion between fascists and communists: the favoured example is the Nazi-Soviet Pact. But – aside from the fact that the Soviet Union played a vital role in defeating the Nazis – it is patently absurd to compare Stalin to present-day leftists like Mélenchon or Corbyn.
  29. ^ Choat, Simon (12 May 2017). "'Horseshoe theory' is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common". The Conversation. Melbourne. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2023. Given the basic implausibility of the horseshoe theory, why do so many centrist commentators insist on perpetuating it? The likely answer is that it allows those in the centre to discredit the left while disavowing their own complicity with the far right. Historically, it has been 'centrist' liberals – in Spain, Chile, Brazil, and in many other countries – who have helped the far right to power, usually because they would rather have had a fascist in power than a socialist. ... Today's fascists have also been facilitated by centrists – and not just, for example, those on the centre-right who have explicitly defended Le Pen. When centrists ape the Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing of the far right, many people begin to think that fascism is legitimate; when they pursue policies which exacerbate economic inequality and hollow out democracy, many begin to think that fascism looks desirable.
  30. ^ Choat, Simon (12 May 2017). "'Horseshoe theory' is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common". The Conversation. Melbourne. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2023. Underlying these claims is a broader and increasingly popular notion that the far left and the far right have more in common than either would like to admit. This is known as the 'horseshoe theory', so called because rather than envisaging the political spectrum as a straight line from communism to fascism, it pictures the spectrum as a horseshoe in which the far left and far right have more in common with each other than they do with the political centre. The theory also underlies many of the attacks on the leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who is accused of cosying up to authoritarian and theocratic regimes and fostering antisemitism within his party. Taken one by one, these claims do not withstand scrutiny. Did Mélenchon give succour to Le Pen? No: he explicitly ruled out supporting Le Pen, and most of his supporters voted for Macron in the second round. Are there antisemites in the Labour Party? Yes: but there are antisemites in every British political party; the difference is that repeated incidents of racism in other parties go unremarked (as does Corbyn's longstanding record of anti-racist activism).
  31. ^ Choat, Simon (12 May 2017). "'Horseshoe theory' is nonsense – the far right and far left have little in common". The Conversation. Melbourne. ISSN 2201-5639. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2023. After the first round of the French presidential elections, several liberal commentators condemned the defeated leftist candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon for refusing to endorse the centrist Emmanuel Macron. His decision was portrayed as a failure to oppose the far-right Front National, and it was argued that many of his supporters were likely to vote for Marine Le Pen in the second round. Comparisons were drawn with the US presidential elections and the alleged failure of Bernie Sanders supporters to back Hilary Clinton over Donald Trump. ... Did Mélenchon give succour to Le Pen? No: he explicitly ruled out supporting Le Pen, and most of his supporters voted for Macron in the second round ... [Citing Bellingcat journalist Maxim Edward's tweet] the number of Fillon voters who switched to Le Pen in 2nd round (20%) is greater than Mélenchon & Hamon voters combined.
  32. ^ Trotsky, Leon (June 1938). "Their Morals and Ours". New International. Vol. IV, no. 6. Socialist Workers Party. pp. 163–173. Retrieved 12 July 2023 – via Marxists Internet Archive. First transcribed for the World Wide Web by David Walters in 1996 for the Trotsky Internet Archive.
  33. ^ Bailey, Andrew; Brennan, Samantha; Kymlicka, Will; Levy, Jacob T.; Sager, Alex; Wolf, Clark, eds. (12 September 2008). The Broadview Anthology of Social and Political Thought. The Twentieth Century and Beyond. Vol. 2. Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press. pp. 2930. ISBN 978-1-55111-899-4.

External links Edit