by Lynn Schmidt
Horseshoes may be good for horses and fun to play with, but they are terrible for politics.
In political science there is an assertion called the Horseshoe Theory. The thesis posits that the political spectrum is not linear but shaped like the bend of a horseshoe, with the left and right extremes being closer to each other than often considered.
The Horseshoe Theory was first described by French writer Jean-Pierre Faye. Faye observed that political ideologies on both the extreme left and extreme right were characterized by similar traits and they had little in common with the ideologies of the political center. The Horseshoe Theory does not require the extremes to have the same beliefs, values or philosophies, only that they show similarities in their behavior.
A recent example of the extremes growing closer together is the far left’s and the far right’s responses to the Russian war against Ukraine, and the role of NATO. From the extreme left we have a recent statement from the Democratic Socialists of America calling for the United States to withdraw from NATO and “end the imperialist expansionism that set the stage for this conflict.” From the right, we have the de facto leader of the Republican Party, former President Donald Trump, having discussed several times his desire for the U.S. to leave NATO, which if it happened would destroy NATO.
The problem with the Horseshoe Theory is not that it’s incorrect but that practicing politics within the horseshoe is impractical. Just as Faye observed, as the ends of the shoe grow closer to meeting, it closes in on the voters in the center or those just left or just right of that center.
Let’s take those horseshoes and play the game with the same name. The game of horseshoes is played by pitching horseshoes toward a metal stake. Players score points by landing their shoes closest to the stake. A ringer is a shoe that encircles the stake. If elections are the stakes and the shoes are political parties, then the wider the shoe’s opening, the easier it will be to score a ringer, or win an election.
If candidates or political parties want to win elections, they need to throw a shoe that is as wide open as possible. The way to do that is with building cross-party coalitions between factions and by having more centrist voters who turn out in primaries and the midterms. Since the rules of the game are not going to change, at least not in the near future, moderates need to be strategic in their play.
The highest percentage of American voters now consider themselves independent. Many of those independent voters likely lean one way or the other but probably find themselves in the bowl of the horseshoe.
President Joe Biden won the 2020 election because he opened the arms of the horseshoe and gathered more votes from the center of the horseshoe electorate. Many of Biden’s voters consider themselves independent. (We can debate whether he is governing that way, and that’s a conversation for another column.)
In 2020, political scientists Steven Teles and Robert Saldin published a paper in National Affairs magazine titled “The Future is Faction.” Teles and Saldin wrote, “The reality is that deep, self-reinforcing dynamics help maintain the disproportionate political influence of those at the ideological extremes.” They go on to make the case that moderate candidates need to find leverage within the two-party system and that can be done by building cross-party coalitions between factions.
But what exactly does this look like for the electorate? The centrist voter will need to evaluate candidates individually and assess where the candidate stands on issues and where they are located within the horseshoe. This might mean voting for a candidate of the other party than you might have voted for historically or voting for an independent candidate.
To step away from the horseshoe analogy momentarily, for more moderate or centrist candidates to win, people need to get out and vote in primaries and in the midterm elections. Typically, approximately only 40% of voters turnout in midterm elections. 2018 provided a great example of higher turnout and more moderate candidates winning their elections. The 2018 midterms had the highest turnout in four decades; 53% of eligible voters cast ballots. The election did favor Democrats, but it was primarily moderate candidates who won their seats.
To score a political ringer, broaden the coalition, expand the opening, and aim for the stake.
