Horseshoe Politics

The Rigid Right and the Loony Left are both manifestations of authoritarianism

It was an X post (tweet) mostly out of frustration after wasting too much time on social media absorbing endless stories about the Rigid Right and the Loony Left that led me on February 23 to exclaim…

The thousands of responses were as predictable as they were confident in their assertion that one side of the political spectrum is unquestionably worse than the other. A short sampling (see all responses here):

My post is suggestive of the Horseshoe Theory of politics, according to which if you take a linear spectrum from Left to Right and bend it into a horseshoe shape, the extreme ends are not so far apart (see graphic above).

The type specimen for the Horseshoe Theory was the 1939 Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact that resulted in the joint invasion of Poland that launched World War II, and was famously broken by Hitler when he invaded Russia two years later, in part, because he detested Communism (which he also equated with Jews), plus he wanted lebensraum (living space), thought of the Russian hun as a lesser breed, needed their natural resources, was a proponent of blood-and-soil romanticism, and more (so his motivations are probably overdetermined). The theory has been applied and criticized ever since, for example here and here. But it very much depends on what issues are being compared and, to be frank, whose ox is being gored by the theory (few on either extreme see themselves as remotely like the extremists on the other pole). Well, then, what would critics prefer, the equally delimiting straight spectrum like this? Where would you put someone like me who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative?

For my political tastes I prefer something like the 2x2 matrix below with the primary dimensions being Liberty (Economic or Personal) and Security (Economic or Personal), in which extremes on the Security variable once again find Communists and Fascists cheek-by-jowl. (I’m in the upper quadrant around Classical Liberalism—more on this below.)

One of my respondents posted in the comments this helpful checklist with updated examples for current events:

Since I started this Skeptic Substack column in 2021, I have been highly critical of the Far-Left’s woke ideology that has led them to abandon the search for objective truth; to treat science as nothing more than a hegemonic Western colonial capitalist tool of power and domination; to give up on Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of judging people by the content of their character, and instead obsess over the color of their skin by implementing DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) programs that force otherwise liberal, tolerant, color-blind people into elevating race above character; to punish anyone who deviates from Far Left norms (created only recently and constantly changing) through any means necessary, from censorship and cancel culture to loss of employment and life ruination; and to redefine biological sex from the long-accepted definition of gamete size/type to whatever anyone says it is, and along with this delusion to discard a century of hard-earned women’s rights to privacy (bathrooms), to female-only spaces (changing rooms, prisons), to female-only sports (swimming, cycling, volleyball), and more generally to ditch the dignity of being a woman. (See my Skeptic columns critical of the Far Left here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

As I said in my X post, at least the Far-Right knows what a woman is—an adult human female…who belongs in the bedroom making babies. The SCOTUS overturning of Roe v. Wade was, as I predicted at the time, only the start of the Far-Right’s plan to take control of women’s reproductive rights, starting with abortion. (See my three-part series defending the pro-choice position here, here, and here. And additional columns critical of the Right, such as here, here, and here.) It was only a matter of time before the Far-Right would target IVF, and that time has come with the Alabama State Supreme Court declaration that all frozen embryos stored for InVitroFertilization are legal persons, and thus the disposal of unused frozen embryos should be considered murder. Predictably, IVF clinics began closing their doors, and in the process deprive couples of this life-giving technology. Here are a couple of my outraged tweets on the matter:

I don’t think many Republicans on the Far Right even know what IVF entails. It is quite invasive, risky, time consuming, expensive, and not guaranteed to work. To prep the body for the process hormone shots must be self-administered for weeks in order to produce extra eggs. Withdrawing the eggs is a form of surgery requiring general anesthesia. After withdrawal they are then fertilized (after we guys make our, um, “contribution” to the process) and then implanted. At least half of all implanted fertilized eggs fail to result in a viable birth, so many couples have multiple fertilized eggs implanted in hopes of having one viable birth (and thus some have twins or triplets), with the rest frozen for future use if all else fails, which is as often the case as not. By treating these frozen embryos as “persons”, if couples don’t want to have half a dozen kids or more, then they (and by “they” I mean the women) would have to go through the painful, stressful, expensive, and time consuming process over and over again in hopes of success. Are conservatives willing to foot the bill for the tens of thousands of dollars for each round in order to “save” the frozen persons?

How ignorant and uninformed are Republicans when it comes to reproductive technology? Here is Alabama Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville when asked his opinion of his state’s Supreme Court decision:

Yeah, I was all for it. You just gotta look at everything going on in the country. It’s just an attack on families, an attack on kids. You know, anything we can do for the future of our young people, because they’re our number one commodity. We need to have more kids, we need to have an opportunity to do that, and I thought this was the right thing to do.

The NBC News reporter was understandably dumbfounded by the Senator’s ignorance. “But IVF is used to have more children, and right now IVF services are paused at some of the clinics in Alabama,” she explained to the now-flummoxed law-maker. “Aren’t you concerned that this could impact people who are trying to have kids?”

Now stumped, and aware of his own lack of knowledge of what IVF is, exactly, Tuberville stuttered out a change of topic: “Well, that’s for another conversation. I think the big thing is right now you protect, you go back to the situation and you try to work it out to where it’s best for everybody. That’s what the whole abortion issue is about.” Uh, no it isn’t Senator.

In fact, IVF enables around 500,000 babies to be born every year worldwide, with an estimated 10 million total since the technology came online. You would think baby-loving pro-natalist conservatives would be all for this technology. But no. This led me to tweet out that the GOP was once again the POS—the Party of Stupid (a descriptor coined by GOP Presidential candidate Bobby Jindal)—and (channelling Monty Python) predicting what may be coming next for the Religious Right:

Every sperm is sacred. / Every sperm is great.

If a sperm is wasted, / God gets quite irate.

Let the heathens spill theirs, / On the dusty ground.

God shall make them pay for / Each sperm that can't be found.

Let the Pagans spill theirs / O'er mountain, hill, and plain.

God shall strike them down for / Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

As for contraception, apparently this technology leads to “recreational sex,” and for conservatives that’s a bridge too far. As if living up to H. L. Mencken’s definition of a Puritan—"the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy"—the conservative Heritage Foundation posted on X that “Conservatives have to lead the way in restoring sex to its true purpose, & ending recreational sex & senseless use of birth control pills.” In support they quoted British writer Mary Harrington, who advocates against the birth control pill and in favor of “rewilding sex, returning the danger to sex, returning the intimacy and, really, the consequentiality to sex.” So…conservatives only have sex for reproductive purposes? Sure. The hypocrisy begs for comedic commentary, as in Bill Maher’s observation of pro-life politicians who arrange abortions for their mistresses, or George Carlin’s assessment of conservatives who pretend to care deeply for the “unborn”, but once you’re born…

You’re on your own. No nothing. No neonatal care, no daycare, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're fucked. Conservatives don't give a shit about you… until you reach military age. Then they think you are just fine, just what they’ve been looking for. They’re not pro-life. They’re anti-woman. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a broodmare for the state.

In response to my X post comment (below) that IVF is just the start, right-wing activist and author Christopher Rufo responded:

“Recreational sex” is a large part of the reason we have so many single-mother households, which drives poverty, crime, and dysfunction. The point of sex is to create children—this is natural, normal, and good.”

Here was my response to Rufo:

Recreational skiing, softball, soccer, tennis...is a big reason we have so many sports injuries @realchrisrufo ! Recreational sex is not the cause of single-mother households. It is LACK of birth control use + lack of education & norms of commitment, marriage, responsibility, etc. Conservatives are right to emphasize family values. Wrong to restrict freedom & choice for others. IVF & frozen embryos have given > 8 million babies life. Why would you want to deprive parents of this life-giving technology that results in endless parental love? (I speak from personal experience.) Egg retrieval, fertilization, hormone prep, embryo implantation, not to mention pregnancy itself, is a HUGE commitment, mainly born by women (we men just have to, uh, make a "contribution" in a cup) Freezing embryos is necessary because the process is very hard on women, expensive, & many first-tries fail. I don't believe that conservatives really believe that a frozen embryo is a person. I think it's part of a larger religious/political agenda to control women's reproductive choice and freedom. Restricting choice and freedom should not be a conservative value, but it has become one.

An even more extreme position on these matters (if such a thing is even possible) was that of Daily Wire conservative commentator Michael Knowles, who opined that…

The reason surrogacy and IVF are immoral is because they interfere with the family, they break up the nucleus, the very building block of society. They separate the reproductive from the conjugal act. The problem for IVF and surrogacy is that no ends, no matter how good, justify immoral means. No ends, no matter how good, justify actions that are intrinsically evil to achieve them. This is the same kind of logic that we would apply to, say, rape. A child who is conceived in rape. I know some. They have a right to life. It’s very good that they exist. We like these people.

This was a bridge too far, even for me, and so I cut loose on Knowles’ despicable, detestable, disgraceful statement:

As I assess matters here in 2024, the Rigid Right and the Loony Left are both manifestations of authoritarianism—specifically, the well-researched and documented (mostly by liberal social scientists) Right-Wing Authoritarianism, but the newly documented (mostly by conservative social scientists—what few there are) Left-Wing Authoritarianism that is equally divisive and destructive. In response, I would like to make the case for Classical Liberalism. To wit:

Like most liberals, I am pro-choice and fully support women’s reproductive and economic rights; I am in favor of free speech and free thought; I believe in the separation of church and state and am against prayer in school; I believe in liberal democracy and voter’s rights; I believe in some gun control measures; I support environmental protection laws and agree that global warming is real, human caused, and something we should work toward mitigating; I work toward reducing animal suffering and expanding animal rights; I think that we need judicial reform because of our broken criminal justice system that incarcerates far too many people for victimless crimes, especially people of color; I think we should legalize all drugs and regulate them like tobacco and alcohol; I believe we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves; and, of course, I hold that science is the best tool ever devised for understanding the world and changing it for the better.

Like most conservatives, I believe in limited and accountable government, along with low taxes, low spending, and a balanced budget; I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law along with our system of Constitutional republicanism with checks and balances to prevent power from accruing to any one person or agency; I believe in property rights, and that one of the primary functions of government is to protect our rights; I believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the philosophy of individualism in contrast with collectivism and identity politics; I contend that free trade and free markets are by far and away the best economic system for wealth production and lifting people out of poverty; I believe that there are objective moral values that apply to most people in most places most of the time (although I do not believe they were derived from God) and I reject moral relativism in all its forms.

Most of all, I agree with John Stuart Mill’s timeless observation (in his 1859 book On Liberty) that: “A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.”

In the run-up to the forthcoming Presidential election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden it doesn’t appear either extreme form of authoritarianism is going to attenuate any time soon. Out of a population of nearly 260 million adult Americans, these two are the best in show? What we need is a uniting President in the mold of Abraham Lincoln who, in his First Inaugural Address, as the country was about to be split asunder in civil war, nevertheless addressed all Americans when he thundered both descriptively and prescriptively:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Michael Shermer is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine, Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, and the host of The Michael Shermer Show. His many books include Why People Believe Weird Things, The Science of Good and Evil, The Believing Brain, The Moral Arc, and Heavens on Earth. His latest book is Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational. His next book is: Truth: What it is, How to Find it, Why it Matters, to be published in 2025.