The Hypocrisy of Party Loyalists

There is a sickness in modern politics, one that is both pervasive and insidious, infecting the very fabric of democratic societies. It’s not a simple matter of corruption or a momentary lapse in judgment—it’s a deep-seated blind loyalty to political parties, a disease that has rendered large segments of the population incapable of critically engaging with their own side of the political spectrum. This loyalty isn’t just about defending policy or ideology—it’s about defending the party itself. It’s about a mindset that demands fealty, unquestioning support, and adherence to a set of beliefs that often defy logic and reason. Those who have fallen into this trap cannot see the hypocrisy of their actions because, in their eyes, their party’s truth is the only truth that matters.

This blind loyalty doesn’t stop at party lines; it transcends the traditional left-right divide, and it is here that we can introduce the Horseshoe Theory—a concept that demands a much deeper examination of political extremism and its unintended consequences. Horseshoe Theory suggests that the further you move toward the political extremes, the more they begin to resemble each other. The far-left and far-right, though outwardly opposite in many ways, share a common, underlying trait: a willingness to use authoritarian tactics to achieve their goals.

Horseshoe Theory is called such because, unlike the traditional political spectrum that views the left and right as opposites along a straight line, it suggests that the far-left and far-right actually bend toward each other as they become more radical. Just like the ends of a horseshoe curve inward toward each other, the more extreme ideologies on both sides begin to share common tactics, methods, and authoritarian practices. Instead of remaining opposites, the extremes converge, revealing how the desire for power and control transcends political ideology.

The idea was first introduced by French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye, who observed that radical political movements, whether on the left or right, often ended up employing the same methods to maintain control once they gained power. The far-left might seek to tear down capitalism, while the far-right seeks to maintain traditional values—yet both movements, when taken to their extremes, seek to control thought, suppress opposition, and limit individual freedoms. These movements, despite their supposed ideological differences, become eerily alike in their methods. And this isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s happened throughout history, as the desire for power leads to authoritarian practices that ultimately undermine the very ideals the movements claim to defend.

In the United States, the consequences of this theory are starkly visible. Take the left-wing ideologies of social justice: the far-left claims to stand for equality and liberation, but in many instances, their tactics resemble the authoritarian actions they condemn. When the left seeks to silence opposing voices by de-platforming individuals or cancelling people for their opinions, it mirrors the oppressive methods used by the far-right. Whether it’s through the enforcement of a “correct” moral stance or the shutting down of opposing viewpoints, both extremes engage in a form of thought control.

On the other hand, the far-right might claim to be defenders of freedom and traditional values, yet they too resort to authoritarian measures when it comes to enforcing their worldview. The far-right often pushes for government intervention in moral issues, such as banning books, censoring media, or imposing laws that control what people can and cannot say. This is not true freedom—it’s a rejection of diversity of thought and expression. Both the far-left and far-right, despite their ideological differences, use government power to control what people think, what they say, and what they believe.

Let’s take a closer look at how these extremes have shown themselves throughout history in the United States. We can begin with Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democratic president who led the country through the Great Depression and World War II. Roosevelt is often hailed as a champion of social justice and a fighter for the oppressed. Yet, his actions during World War II, particularly the internment of Japanese Americans, show a different side of his presidency. Over 120,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated to internment camps under Roosevelt’s orders, all in the name of national security. This was an act of authoritarianism carried out by a leader who claimed to be fighting for the oppressed.

Similarly, Richard Nixon, a Republican president, was elected on a platform of law and order. Nixon is often remembered for his tough stance on crime and his commitment to preserving the American way of life. But under his administration, the government engaged in widespread surveillance of political opponents and civil rights activists, effectively undermining the very freedoms that Nixon claimed to uphold. Nixon’s Watergate scandal exposed the lengths to which he was willing to go to maintain power, using the government to spy on, undermine, and discredit his enemies. Again, we see the far-left and far-right employing the same authoritarian tactics, albeit under different pretenses.

In more recent history, the actions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama offer further evidence of the convergence of political extremes. Bush, a Republican, justified the Patriot Act as a necessary response to terrorism. In doing so, he expanded government surveillance to unprecedented levels, stripping away civil liberties in the name of national security. Obama, a Democrat, campaigned on a platform of hope and change, vowing to undo the surveillance state. However, once in power, Obama expanded the same policies that Bush had put in place, including drone strikes, mass surveillance, and the use of military force without Congressional approval. Both presidents, despite being from opposite ends of the political spectrum, used government overreach to infringe upon the very freedoms they had promised to protect.

Despite their stark political differences, both President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump have demonstrated strikingly similar authoritarian tactics during their time in power. These tactics, often disguised as efforts to restore justice, secure national security, or protect traditional values, have blurred the lines between the two extremes, reflecting the core of Horseshoe Theory—that the farther one moves toward the political extremes, the more the left and right begin to resemble each other.

One of the most prominent examples of this convergence is their use of executive power to bypass traditional legislative processes. Biden, like Trump before him, turned to executive orders as a tool to achieve his agenda without Congressional approval. The Paris Agreement re-entry and the Muslim travel ban reversal are just a few examples of Biden using executive action to impose sweeping changes. Critics argue that these moves, while aimed at undoing Trump-era policies, echoed Trump’s own use of executive power to advance his agenda—namely, the border wall and the Muslim ban. Both presidents employed executive orders to circumvent public debate and legislative checks, signaling their willingness to centralize authority and bypass the democratic process when it suited their interests.

Both Biden and Trump have also shown a concerning tendency to justify censorship and speech control, particularly in the name of national security, public health, and social justice. Biden’s administration faced intense scrutiny in 2021 for its pressure on social media companies to remove misinformation—particularly regarding COVID-19 and vaccines. Biden’s criticism of platforms like Facebook for allowing the spread of “false” narratives underscored a belief that controlling speech was necessary for the public good, even at the cost of free expression. Yet, his calls for censorship mirrored those of Trump, who regularly criticized platforms like Twitter for silencing his voice and called for more regulation of media outlets that opposed his policies. While their justifications differed—Biden framed it as protecting public health, while Trump railed against what he saw as left-wing bias and “fake news”—their methods were strikingly similar: both sought to control the flow of information and silence those who contradicted their views.

The use of national security as an excuse to impose policies restricting individual freedoms further underscores the authoritarian impulses shared by both leaders. During his presidency, Trump’s push for the Patriot Act and his zero-tolerance immigration policies demonstrated his willingness to erode civil liberties in the name of national security. Biden, while often promoting the opposite of Trump’s approach, has continued similar practices.

His administration’s policies, particularly in the realm of immigration and climate change, have expanded the scope of government control, relying on executive authority to impose changes. Biden’s stance on the vaccine mandate, for example, forced citizens to comply or face penalties, an authoritarian tactic not unlike Trump’s push to implement immigration bans and mass surveillance.

What is perhaps most striking is the nationalistic rhetoric both leaders have employed. While Trump’s “America First” rhetoric centered on protecting the country from external threats—often in the form of immigration and global agreements—Biden’s rhetoric, particularly around the “Build Back Better” agenda, calls for a unified America based on collective justice and equality. Both presidents, despite their different ideologies, have used the concept of unity to silence opposition, casting those who disagree as enemies of the state. Biden’s calls for unity have, in some cases, marginalized those who held opposing views, further centralizing political control in the hands of a select few.

In both cases, despite their ideological differences, both Biden and Trump embraced authoritarianism in the form of government overreach and speech suppression. These actions reflect the paradox of extremism outlined by Horseshoe Theory, which, as stated yet again, posits that when movements on both sides of the political spectrum go to extremes, they ultimately employ similar tactics. Whether through executive overreach, censorship, or nationalistic rhetoric, the far-left and far-right reveal a shared impulse toward authoritarian control.

As the political climate becomes more polarized, the actions of both Biden and Trump serve as chilling reminders of the dangers of blind loyalty and partisan allegiance. While each side may claim to be fighting for freedom, justice, or national security, their willingness to use authoritarian tactics and suppress dissent shows that the real battle isn’t about ideology—it’s about control.

Those examples only represent a grain of sand on the shore line of political hypocrisy that conceptualizes Faye’s Horseshoe Theory. But this is the core of the problem: that both the far-left and far-right, when they gain power, become willing to use the same authoritarian tactics to preserve their version of reality. Both sides claim to fight for freedom, yet neither side can truly define what freedom means. In the end, they are more concerned with control than with the ideals of liberty or justice. When one side wins, the other loses, and both become complicit in a system that suppresses thought, speech, and dissent.

The left and the right appear to be the same in their extremism– engaging in acts of political violence, fascism, and censorship - all in the name of “saving democracy.” But a lesson emerges that extremism, in any form, ultimately leads to the same outcome. The far-left and far-right are not ideologically opposed to each other in the way we are often led to believe. Instead, they share a common tendency to undermine the very values they claim to uphold. When we abandon our ability to critically engage with both sides of the political spectrum, we set ourselves up to fall prey to the same authoritarianism that has plagued societies throughout history.

Both the far-left and far-right, despite their differences in ideology, have resorted to political violence as a means of enforcing their views and silencing opposition. The left often justifies this violence as a form of revolutionary action, aimed at dismantling systems of oppression and inequality. The right, on the other hand, might justify it as defending traditional values or fighting against perceived societal decay. However, regardless of justification, the end result is the same: both extremes embrace violence as a tool to achieve political ends.

Whether it’s the far-right's history of white nationalist terrorism, street violence, and attempts to intimidate or eliminate marginalized communities, or the far-left’s use of militant groups or violent protests against what they view as capitalist or fascist institutions, political violence has been a constant in the history of radical politics. In the past century alone, we've seen countless examples—the rise of fascist militias in Europe and communist insurgencies around the world—where ideological extremes have led to bloodshed and destruction in the name of political goals.

This violence is not just a relic of history—it continues today. The far-right in the U.S. has seen a resurgence in groups like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who have committed acts of violence in the name of nationalism and a desire to preserve what they consider "American values." On the left, we see anarchist groups and radical progressives who turn to destruction as a method to confront what they perceive as systemic oppression and injustice. The violence, though directed at different targets, stems from the same place—a belief that the ends justify the means and that political power can only be secured by force. This shared willingness to use violence reveals how both sides, though ideologically distinct, are not so different in their willingness to employ authoritarian tactics when they feel their cause is under threat.

This desire for ideological control is not new—it’s a hallmark of fascism, which thrives on the suppression of dissent and the imposition of a singular, state-approved narrative. Whether it’s the far-left or far-right, both extremes have, at times, embraced fascist tactics when they believe their vision of society is under threat, resorting to the same authoritarian measures that historically lead to state-controlled thought and violence.

Fascism is often seen as the ultimate embodiment of far-right authoritarianism, a political ideology that seeks to impose a strict, hierarchical society where the state has near-total control over the lives of its citizens. It is a movement built on nationalism, militarism, and the rejection of democratic principles. Fascism thrives on the idea that the state is more important than the individual and that the strength of the nation depends on obedience and conformity to its leaders. Fascist regimes often use violence, propaganda, and state-sanctioned terror to suppress dissent and enforce uniformity.

However, what is often overlooked in discussions of fascism is that, in many ways, the tactics of fascism are not limited to the far-right. The far-left has, in certain instances, adopted similarly authoritarian methods in the name of revolutionary change. The use of centralized power and violence to enforce ideological purity has been seen in communist regimes as well—Stalinist Russia and Maoist China being prominent examples. These left-wing regimes used violence and oppression to eliminate perceived enemies, control thought, and consolidate power in ways that closely resembled the far-right fascist states they opposed.

This blurring of lines between the far-left and far-right becomes even clearer when we consider that fascism itself, in its most extreme form, tends to adopt the very same authoritarian tactics that are used by some forms of socialism and communism—namely, the suppression of free speech, censorship, and the centralization of power. Both extremes, despite their ideological differences, view individual freedoms as expendable when it comes to securing their vision of the "greater good" or the "perfect society."

What we see, then, is that fascism is not just a far-right phenomenon; it is a manifestation of authoritarianism, a desire to create a uniform, controlled society that eliminates opposition in any form. Whether it comes from the far-right, with its focus on nationalism and tradition, or from the far-left, with its emphasis on collective control and revolutionary change, the fundamental tactics of fascism—centralization of power, suppression of opposition, and the use of violence to maintain control—are present in both extremes. This should give us pause when we talk about the dangers of authoritarianism and the methods employed by both sides.

The paradox of fascism, as it relates to Horseshoe Theory, is that extremism, when pushed to its limits, inevitably turns toward the same authoritarian tactics, regardless of the ideological basis. Fascism doesn’t belong exclusively to the far-right—it is a tool of authoritarianism that can be wielded by any movement that seeks to force conformity, suppress dissent, and centralize control under the banner of ideological purity. The very tactics that were once seen as uniquely fascist in the far-right have been embraced, in different forms, by movements across the political spectrum. This overlap of methods reveals the true danger of extremism: it is not the ideology that defines the authoritarian, but the desire for control at all costs.

It is the same with censorship and suppression. The left brands it as "cancel culture," firing them from jobs, and socially exiling anyone who dares to step outside the approved narrative. From social media platforms to universities, the left has weaponized the idea of protecting people from harm by controlling what can and cannot be said. Meanwhile, the right does the same, but with a different agenda. Speech restrictions, and legislation aimed at punishing dissenters under the guise of protecting "family values" are no better. While both sides claim to defend free speech, their actions speak louder than their words. They reveal the truth—they do not want a free exchange of ideas. They want their ideas to be the only ones that exist. When speech contradicts their beliefs, they wield the power of the state, media, and social platforms to shut it down, branding it as dangerous or harmful.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Both sides, despite their rhetoric about freedom of expression, reveal their authoritarian impulses when it comes to speech that challenges their worldview. On the left, the call for inclusion becomes a justification for silencing opposing voices, while the right, in its defense of traditional values, uses the same tactics to silence what it deems as immoral or unpatriotic. This is not about protecting people from harm—this is about controlling the narrative and ensuring that only one version of the truth is allowed to prevail.

In a society that claims to value free speech, both extremes have shown time and time again that they are more interested in monopolizing the truth than engaging with the diversity of thought that is the backbone of democracy. This, once again, is the essence of authoritarianism—the desire to control what is said and what is heard—and it exists on both sides of the political spectrum! No one is immune from the temptation to silence those who disagree, and the only way to protect genuine freedom of expression is to demand it for all, regardless of where the speech falls on the ideological spectrum.

Do you see a pattern forming here? I’ll lay it out! The fight isn’t about left versus right—it’s about control versus freedom! The political extremes, whether they’re preaching progress or tradition, their tactics are eerily similar because, deep down, their ultimate goal is the same: to reshape the world according to their narrow, authoritarian view. Both sides claim to champion freedom, justice, and the voice of the people, but both are quick to sacrifice those very principles when it serves their power.

It’s time for us to step back and take a hard look at the hypocrisy of our political loyalties. The party loyalists on both sides are quick to condemn the other side for their authoritarian tendencies, yet they fail to recognize the same behavior within their own ranks. Until we are willing to acknowledge this fundamental truth, we will continue to be divided, manipulated, and controlled by the very systems we claim to oppose.

Wake up and realize you’re not fighting for justice or truth—you’re fighting for power. And as long as you continue to blindly follow, you will remain nothing more than a pawn in someone else’s game. We have to stop looking for heroes in the extremes. The real fight is not against a specific ideology but against the systems of control. The revolution you seek won’t come through that blind allegiance; it will only come when we start thinking critically, questioning everything, and breaking free from the chains of partisanship. Only then will we be able to see the world for what it truly is—to work together in compromise, to co-exist in harmony, and to have a chance at changing it for the better.