Political Horseshoe

Definition:

The “political horseshoe” is a model used to illustrate the political spectrum from between the left, center, and right.

Etymology:

The term originates from 20th-century political discourse, most notably associated with Jean-Pierre Faye, a French philosopher. He argued that the extremes of the political spectrum tend to resemble one another more than they do the center, hence the shape of a horseshoe — where the ends curve toward each other.

Description:

The political horseshoe is a highly popular linguistic deception concerning political ideologies. The idea mainly consists of positioning all ideologies on a spectrum, where the ideology placed in the center is conservative, meaning it aims to maintain the current system. The ideology positioned far to the right desires authority with complete power over the people, while the ideology positioned far to the left desires no authority over the people.

The problem with the center is that since it is always conservative, meaning since it aims to maintain the current system, it will always shift based on how much the current system leans left or right. In other words, if the current system leans right, the center represents what’s actually right-leaning, and if the current system leans left, the center represents what’s actually left-leaning.

It is claimed that one of the reasons for choosing a horseshoe to symbolize the political spectrum instead of a straight horizontal line is because both the left and right ends of the horseshoe begin to point towards each other, supposedly symbolizing that there isn’t a far step from the outermost right to the outermost left. They argue that the outermost right and outermost left have more in common with each other than with what they call the more moderate center positions. This idea stems from the belief that achieving the outermost left is impossible based on the fact that we have no single example in human history where we have been without authority. In all cases where we have tried to eliminate authority, it has always emerged. The idea that it is a short step from the outermost right to the outermost left is completely absurd, as complete authority and no authority are as far apart as possible. If you go all the way from the left end, and all the way around to the right end, and then continue over to the left end again, you have “gone full circle,” meaning you have gone through everything without any change occurring, which is a metaphor for madness. If the popular claim that the outermost right and outermost left have more in common with each other than with the more “moderate” center positions is the actual reason for choosing a horseshoe to symbolize the political spectrum, they clearly should have chosen the concept of the political circle instead (which some people do). Since this idea has poisoned the symbolism of the political horseshoe, it would actually be more a accurate metaphor for the political spectrum to use a political horseshoe magnet instead as the polarities repel each other.

The idea is that the center of the political horseshoe is the starting point and the norm, where you can begin to move towards the left or towards the right. This is illogical because no humans are born with the belief that the world system is perfect as it is. Authority is a fictional concept we are not born believing in, but one we are taught to believe in. If the horseshoe had followed logic, the political horseshoe should actually be seen as a gauge where the starting point is outside the left end. So the more you move to the right, the more authority you want. This is the same metaphor as “going down the rabbit hole” from Lewis Carroll’s novels “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Alice Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There,” where you must reach the bottom (of the rabbit hole/Wonderland) before you see the mirror hinting that you must turn around and climb all the way back up to get out of it. If you reach the bottom of the rabbit hole, you can become trapped, like Alice was before she discovered the mirror (the Looking-Glass). The same applies to the political horseshoe: if you go all the way to the right, you become trapped in fantasyland (100% imprisoned by authority). But if you have gone all the way to the right, you have witnessed the entire fantasyland, and you have experienced everything that needs to be mirrored to get out, if the thought of getting out ever arises.

Articles:

Symbolism:

The actual reason they chose a horseshoe to symbolize the political spectrum instead of a straight horizontal line is that an arc carries symbolism of a prison of fantasy where truth is bent. The same reason why they divide the political spectrum into what they call left-wing and right-wing as the illuminated symbolism of a bird is imprisonment. The political horseshoe serves as a metaphor for the brain. If someone else has authority over your brain, it means you’re not thinking for yourself; instead, someone else is thinking for you.

The political horseshoe model is often illustrated with the left colored red and the right blue — a visual convention that aligns more with European political symbolism than the American one. To understand why the American model doesn’t match this symbolism, we need to explore both historical context and symbolic traditions.

While the modern concept of the political horseshoe is typically credited to Jean-Pierre Faye in the 1990s, the symbolic framework of red-left and blue-right stretches back thousands of years, deeply rooted in religious and esoteric traditions.

In the United States, political colors were assigned relatively recently. Ironically, the Republican Party — founded in the 1850s — began as an anti-slavery, progressive movement advocating for a strong federal government to protect civil rights. In contrast, the Democratic Party was then dominated by Southern conservatives who defended slavery, segregation, and states’ rights — positions we now associate with the political right.

Throughout the 20th century, especially during the New Deal era (1930s) and the Civil Rights Movement (1960s), these parties gradually swapped ideological roles. Democrats shifted toward progressive social policies, drawing support from minorities and the working class. Meanwhile, Republicans, particularly under Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and later Reagan’s rhetoric, began to appeal to conservative white voters in the South. By the 1980s, the ideological identities of the two major parties had effectively reversed.

Outside of electoral politics, the symbolism of left/right and red/blue has been consistent in religious language for thousands of years. In many religious traditions, the left (often associated with red) represents descent, disorder, or rebellion — symbolically linked to hell or “away from God” (sometimes represented as AWAY or a devil figure). The right (often blue) represents ascent, order, and divine alignment — symbolically linked to heaven or YHWH (Yahweh, the Biblical God).

In Christian traditions especially, these symbols are frequently reversed. Christianity — as a religion built on inversion and paradox — often flips left/right meanings, which creates confusion in both theology and language. This reversal is part of a broader linguistic structure that obscures meaning and reinforces belief through contradiction. In this context, those on the political right who see themselves as the most devout believers in God are, in fact, mistakenly worshipping a fictional character they call “God,” who is actually the fictional character “Satan” in disguise.

Articles: