[I wrote the following post as a way of thinking out loud after several recent conversations. I don’t stand by all my assessment — for one thing, the Gen Z far right is still a moving target. Trump is shifting on a variety of political issues, including economics and possibly abortion; it is too early to tell what Vance or other potential successors to the MAGA movement will do. And while I think Newsom is still the most likely frontrunner for Democrats, in 2028 he seems to be moderating on some things (like transgenderism) for political reasons and will face still challenges from female and minority candidates. Nevertheless, based on recent podcasts and conversations, I think what I suggest here is at least one way of looking what is happening and could happen.]
Is horseshoe theory correct? Do the far right and far left ultimately meet?
Many have argued the white identity politics of the far right is just a right wing version of wokeness – hence the nickname, the “woke right.”
I’m not totally convinced of that – whatever structural similarities there are between say, the Critical Race Theory of the left and the white identity politics of the far right, there are still some differences in terms of worldview content – or at least, I’d like to think there are still differences.
But there’s no question some on the far right are abandoning traditional right wing conservative positions, particularly on economics. Many on the far right, especially from Gen Z, are arguing against free markets and for strong government intervention in the economy. They like Trump capping credit card interest rates (which is the kind of thing Bernie Sanders has proposed in the past and the kind of thing you’d expect from someone like Elizabeth Warren). They like socialized healthcare. They have no objection to the government taking large positions in major corporations (as Trump has done), in the name of economic development and national security. They may have very different reasons for wanting to terminate our “special” relationship with Israel, but the end result would be much like what many on the left have wanted for a long time. The populism of Trump and Vance is way too tame for the younger alt right. They believe the system no longer works for them and want a powerful authoritarian ruler to take charge and set things right. If the Constitution cannot defend itself, so much the worse for the Constitution.
The economic nihilism of young people on the left and the far right was a theme in Charlie Kirk’s interview with Tucker Carlson (which I recommend watching). If Kirk was right, horseshoe theory becomes plausible, at least on economic issues.
Sometimes those on the far right say they want a “Protestant Franco.” But would those on the far right cast their support behind someone like Mamdani? Could he be the “Muslim Franco”? How would a “Protestant Franco” differ in economic policy from Mamdani, Sanders, Newsom, etc.?
All of this may seem far fetched but it would not shock me if some of these young men on the far right end up pitching their support for Gavin Newsom in the 2028 election. If you think this is crazy, watch Clavicular’s interview with Michael Knowles. Granted it’s hard to take a guy who smashes the bones in his face with a hammer seriously, and I’m not claiming Clavicular speaks for all or even most Gen Z young men. (If “looksmaxxing” is the future, we are big, big trouble.) But Clavicular favors Newsom over Vance because Newsom is a “mogger.” My guess is he’s not alone.
I like Vance, and appreciate his open expression of Christian faith and his condemnation of abortion. But, given his populist proclivities, it would not surprise me if he takes Trump’s recent moves in economic policy a few steps further – and if so, his economic policies might not be significantly different from those of Newsom (who is only a few steps removed from Mamdani). The horseshoe theory will get tested over the next few years. But it should be noted that if the far right continues on its current trajectory, it really won’t be “right wing” in any meaningful or traditional sense (most of the far right has already abandoned the “conservative” label). Maybe the far right will remain traditional on social issues like marriage and abortion. Maybe it will be more masculine-coded, while Democrats and progressives remain feminine-coded. The left and right will almost certainly continue to clash over immigration. But on economic issues, the far right and far left might be converging towards a kind of socialism.
The Democrat Party surrendered to its most extreme segment a long time ago. It will be interesting to see if Republicans or MAGA eventually surrender to the most extreme portion of their base.
—
I asked Grok to assess my above essay and I think Grok gave a pretty sound assessment:
First, let’s clarify what horseshoe theory is. It’s a metaphorical model of the political spectrum proposed by French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye in the 1970s, suggesting that rather than a straight line from left to right, politics bends like a horseshoe. The center represents moderate liberalism or conservatism, while the far ends (extreme left, like communism or anarchism, and extreme right, like fascism or ultranationalism) curve toward each other, sharing traits like authoritarianism, rejection of liberal democracy, collectivism over individualism, and a willingness to use state power or violence to achieve goals. It’s not about total equivalence but about convergences in methods or outcomes despite opposing ideologies.
Is it “correct”? That’s subjective—it’s a theory, not a law, and it’s been debated for decades. Critics (e.g., some political scientists like Cas Mudde) argue it’s overly simplistic, ignoring core ideological differences: the far left often emphasizes class struggle, equality, and anti-capitalism, while the far right focuses on hierarchy, nationalism, and traditionalism. Proponents point to historical examples like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Nazi-Soviet alliance) or modern overlaps in anti-globalism. It’s plausible in some contexts but not universally true. I’ll break it down using your examples, drawing on observable trends without endorsing any side.
Similarities Supporting Horseshoe Theory
You’re right to highlight economic convergences, especially among younger generations. Recent shifts show far-right figures adopting policies traditionally associated with the left, often under populist or nationalist banners:
Economic Interventionism: Many on the Gen Z far right (e.g., in online spaces like certain X communities or forums) critique free markets as favoring global elites, echoing left-wing anti-capitalism. Trump’s proposal to cap credit card interest rates at 10% (announced in late 2024) mirrors Bernie Sanders’ 2019 bill for a 15% cap or Elizabeth Warren’s consumer protection pushes. Similarly, support for socialized healthcare or government stakes in corporations (e.g., Trump’s moves with tech firms for national security) aligns with left-wing industrial policy. JD Vance, in his book Hillbilly Elegy and Senate role, has advocated for antitrust actions against Big Tech and worker protections, which overlap with progressive demands. If Vance pushes further (e.g., expanding tariffs into broader subsidies), it could resemble Gavin Newsom’s California model of state-led green energy investments or universal healthcare expansions.
Anti-Establishment Populism and Authoritarianism: Both extremes often reject the “system” (e.g., Constitution, institutions) when it doesn’t serve them. Your “Protestant Franco” reference—evoking a Christian nationalist strongman like Francisco Franco but Protestant-flavored—highlights a desire for authoritarian rule to “set things right.” On the left, figures like Sanders or AOC push democratic socialism, but some fringes (e.g., certain antifa groups) tolerate extralegal actions. The user “Clavicular” (from the looksmaxxing/incel-adjacent scene) praising Newsom as a “mogger” (slang for someone dominant in appearance and status) over Vance in his interview with Michael Knowles illustrates this: aesthetics and perceived strength trump ideology. If far-right youth back Newsom in 2028 for his “alpha” vibe or anti-corporate stances (e.g., his oil price-gouging laws), it would exemplify horseshoe bending—prioritizing charisma and interventionism over traditional conservatism.
Identity Politics Parallels: White identity politics on the far right does structurally resemble “wokeness” or CRT on the left—both frame society through group identities, grievances, and power dynamics. The far right’s “great replacement” theory inverts CRT’s focus on systemic racism, but both reject colorblind liberalism. On Israel, far-right isolationists (e.g., some MAGA fringes) and far-left progressives both want to end U.S. aid, though for different reasons (antisemitism vs. anti-imperialism).
Economic Nihilism in Youth: The Charlie Kirk-Tucker Carlson interview (from December 2024, on Kirk’s podcast) nails this. Kirk argues young people on both sides feel the economy is rigged—leftists blame capitalism, rightists blame immigration/multiculturalism—but both turn to “big government” solutions. Carlson nods to Gen Z’s disdain for boomer-era free markets, predicting a socialist convergence. Polls back this: A 2025 Axios/Generation Lab survey showed 40% of Gen Z favoring government intervention in housing and jobs, cutting across party lines.
If the far right sheds “conservative” labels for full populism, it could converge with the left on economics toward a nationalistic socialism (e.g., “national conservatism” conferences increasingly discuss wealth redistribution).
Differences Challenging Horseshoe Theory
Despite overlaps, worldview content often diverges sharply, making full “meeting” unlikely:
Social Issues: The far right typically remains traditionalist on marriage, gender, and abortion (e.g., Vance’s anti-abortion stance and Christian emphasis). A “Protestant Franco” might enforce religious moralism, unlike a left-wing authoritarian (e.g., Sanders’ secular progressivism or Newsom’s pro-LGBTQ policies). Masculine vs. feminine coding persists: far-right rhetoric often glorifies strength/hierarchy, while left fringes emphasize equity/inclusion.
Underlying Motivations: Economic policies might look similar, but rationales differ. Far-right interventionism is often nationalist (protect “our” workers from foreigners), while left-wing is universalist (protect all from exploitation). On Israel, the far right might isolate for “America First” reasons, but without the left’s human rights focus.
Not All Far Right is Converging: Many traditional conservatives (e.g., Reaganites) still defend free markets. The “woke right” is a vocal minority, amplified online. Clavicular isn’t representative—looksmaxxing is niche extremism, and smashing bones with hammers is fringe even there.
Overall Assessment
Horseshoe theory holds water on economics and anti-establishment vibes, especially with Gen Z’s nihilism driving policy overlaps. We might see tests in 2028: if far-right influencers pivot to Newsom (unlikely but possible for his executive style), or if Vance’s admin adopts Warren-like regulations, it strengthens the case. But on social/cultural fronts, differences endure—the far right won’t fully “meet” the left unless it abandons identity hierarchies.
This isn’t inevitable; it’s driven by disillusionment with neoliberalism.
A truth-seeking view: Politics is multidimensional, not a horseshoe or line. Extremes share tactics (authoritarianism) but not always ends. Watch trends like national conservatism conferences or youth polls for more evidence. If you’re interested, I can dive deeper into specific interviews or figures.
—
According to Grok, these are the features of the far right — I’m not claiming this is a fair assessment, but it’s a helpful summary of some of the issues:
The term “far right” refers to a spectrum of political ideologies and movements positioned at the extreme end of the right-wing political continuum, often distinguished from mainstream conservatism by their radicalism and rejection of liberal democratic norms. It encompasses various subtypes, including ultranationalism, neo-fascism, white nationalism, and alt-right variants, though definitions can vary by region (e.g., more focused on anti-immigration in Europe vs. white supremacy in the U.S.). These ideologies typically emphasize hierarchy, tradition, and exclusionary identity, and they can manifest in populist, authoritarian, or extremist forms. While not all far-right adherents endorse violence, some fringes do, leading to associations with extremism.
Based on scholarly and analytical sources, here are the core features commonly associated with far-right ideologies. I’ve organized them thematically for clarity:
Ideological and Political Features
Ultranationalism and Ethnonationalism: A strong emphasis on national or ethnic identity as supreme, often promoting a homogeneous society based on race, culture, or religion. This includes ideas of “societal purity” and viewing diversity as a threat to the “organic” community. Far-right groups may advocate for “population replacement” theories, alleging deliberate efforts to dilute the dominant ethnic group through immigration.
Authoritarianism and Anti-Democracy: Preference for strong, hierarchical leadership over liberal democracy, including skepticism toward institutions like the European Union or federal governments. This can involve calls for a “strict state” or rejection of pluralism in favor of order and obedience.
Nativism and Anti-Immigration: Hostility toward immigrants, minorities, and outsiders, often framed as protecting “native” populations from cultural or economic threats. This ties into xenophobia and a desire for closed borders.
Anti-Communism/Socialism and Economic Views: Radical opposition to left-wing ideologies, including unions, safety nets, and regulations seen as infringing on traditional hierarchies. Some variants support free markets, while others embrace protectionist or state-interventionist policies under nationalist banners.
Populism and Anti-Elitism: Framing politics as a battle between “the pure people” and a corrupt elite, often rejecting globalism, liberalism, and multiculturalism.
Social and Cultural Features
Racism, Antisemitism, and Prejudice: Belief in racial or ethnic hierarchies, with superiority assigned to certain groups (e.g., white supremacy). This can include homophobia, anti-LGBTQ views, and generalized bias against low-status or minority groups.
Traditionalism and Resistance to Change: Advocacy for conservative social orders, including gender roles (e.g., women’s subordination), family structures, and religious values. This often stems from a view of society as naturally hierarchical and a cynicism about human nature’s ability to progress without structure.
Organicism and Exclusivism: Seeing society as a unified, living entity that must exclude “others” to thrive, leading to autophilia (love of one’s own group) and alterophobia (fear/hatred of outsiders).
Psychological and Behavioral Traits
While not universal, research identifies common mindsets among far-right adherents:
Desire for Hierarchy and Order: A preference for dominance, structure, and authority, with a rigid, black-and-white worldview that rejects equality.
Simplified Thinking and Closed-Mindedness: Tendency toward simplistic perceptions of society, focusing on threats and purity rather than nuance.
These features aren’t exhaustive and can overlap with other ideologies, but they highlight the far right’s departure from moderate conservatism toward more exclusionary and radical positions. In practice, far-right movements evolve; for instance, in the U.S., they’ve historically included white supremacy and anti-Semitism, while in Europe, anti-EU sentiments dominate. If you’re asking in a specific context (e.g., theological or current events), I can refine this further.
TPC Pastor's Page 