Do Not Fear the Right or Left
Fear the abyss below
Although the far left and far right rarely get along, there are some things they have in common.
The more extreme each gets, the more strongly they encroach upon freedom. This, in part, is referred to as Horseshoe Theory. But although it is an observed phenomenon, it is not fully clear what else the two have in common.
What hidden principles draw extremists of opposing sides towards each other?
At the top-center of the horseshoe is the moderate liberal position.
Centrist liberals respect individual rights. They tolerate dissent, which allows for contradiction. To ensure power is equally shared by individuals, they administer checks and balances.
Because this center is neither ultra-conservative nor ultra-progressive, it is oriented towards incrementalism: steady progress rather than revolution.
To the (extremist) center at the bottom, this is opposite
The far left and the far right do not respect the individual, but celebrate the collective. They rarely tolerate dissent. And most of their regimes enforce total orthodoxy (or at least try to).
As the left of the horseshoe is opposite to the right, the bottom is opposite to the top.
Collectivism alone does not explain extremism.
It is anti-individualist, but that is not its essence. Its essence is encroachment upon the agency of others. It stems from a kind of hubris: the false conviction that one is wise enough to tell others what to do.
Extremists believe that as a result of their superior knowledge, they must impose their vision upon society.
The left might justify coercion through social justice, overthrowing oppressors, or historical inevitability. The right might do the same through claims of national destiny, cultural preservation, and traditional order. The underlying pattern, however, remains identical:
We know what is best, so comply.
Although often in fierce competition, leftists and rightists share an underlying vision.
They foster the idea of a righteous political wave that washes away the old and ushers in the new. Radicals move as one. What is in their way is either crushed or converted.
This explains why they are anti-individualist. The collective goal is elevated over the individual.
On a grand scale, extremism strips away agency, replacing freedom with control.
A distinct human tendency corresponds with the need for control.
It is the flight from the burden of having freedom. The moral certainty of collectivists is explained through the same mechanism. It quiets the mind to find comfort in a redemptive grand narrative.
Authoritarianism tempts us to escape the deepest trials of existence itself.
Hence, the authoritarian left and the authoritarian right are not true opposites.
They are competing versions of the same impulse: the wish to play God in the lives of others. Their ideological costume is mainly a vehicle towards what they truly worship: power. This brings them at odds with the liberal center, whose essence is to reject this tendency.
Ultimately, it is about freedom versus control.
Control is at the bottom of the horseshoe.
Radicals seek control over the state, over society, over their neighbors.
They are characterized by a readiness to usurp the agency of others. To disregard their free will. To believe it acceptable to alter their lives in the name of some ideal.
Freedom, to the totalitarian, is a technical hindrance. A mere obstacle to his utopia.
But who ever flourished on someone else’s volition?