Is the true meaning of "Horseshoe theory" just "opposition to the status quo"?

[MT Treasurer]

While I’ll concede that there is oftentimes an overlap between right-wing and left-wing forces on important matters where there seems to be general consensus in other parties/across other parts of the political spectrum, does it really just boil down to the fact that it is usually those parties in or closer to the 'center' of the political spectrum that hold power and are therefore responsible for and unlikely to change the status quo, while both left-wing and right-wing parties are (naturally) either going to campaign against that for electoral purposes or genuinely interested in changing it?

It’s perhaps an oversimplification much like this theory is, but is "Horseshoe theory" really as surprising as many make it out to be? To me, it makes perfect sense from an electoral and practical-based standpoint.

[ingemann]

While I’ll concede that there is oftentimes an overlap between right-wing and left-wing forces on important matters where there seems to be general consensus in other parties/across other parts of the political spectrum, does it really just boil down to the fact that it is usually those parties in or closer to the 'center' of the political spectrum that hold power and are therefore responsible for and unlikely to change the status quo, while both left-wing and right-wing parties are (naturally) either going to campaign against that for electoral purposes or genuinely interested in changing it?

It’s perhaps an oversimplification much like this theory is, but is "Horseshoe theory" really as surprising as many make it out to be? To me, it makes perfect sense from an electoral and practical-based standpoint.

Horseshoe is observation of two different phenomenon.

1: Authoritarians tends to use the same tactic no matter their ideology.
2: Powerless fringe groups tend to be full of the same kind of fecal matter no matter their ideology.

There’s nothing deeper to it.

[MT Treasurer]

Horseshoe is observation of two different phenomenon.

1: Authoritarians tends to use the same tactic no matter their ideology.
2: Powerless fringe groups tend to be full of the same kind of fecal matter no matter their ideology.

There’s nothing deeper to it.

Welp, I guess this settles it, then.

[PSOL]

While I’ll concede that there is oftentimes an overlap between right-wing and left-wing forces on important matters where there seems to be general consensus in other parties/across other parts of the political spectrum, does it really just boil down to the fact that it is usually those parties in or closer to the 'center' of the political spectrum that hold power and are therefore responsible for and unlikely to change the status quo, while both left-wing and right-wing parties are (naturally) either going to campaign against that for electoral purposes or genuinely interested in changing it?

It’s perhaps an oversimplification much like this theory is, but is "Horseshoe theory" really as surprising as many make it out to be? To me, it makes perfect sense from an electoral and practical-based standpoint.

Horseshoe is observation of two different phenomenon.

1: Authoritarians tends to use the same tactic no matter their ideology.
2: Powerless fringe groups tend to be full of the same kind of fecal matter no matter their ideology.

There’s nothing deeper to it.

1. No
2. No

Really there is only one response to give to this thread and to say "I suppose" in the minds of the status quo.

[AtorBoltox]

Not sure if characterizing the Molotov Ribbentrop pact as just 'opposition to the status quo' is correct

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also what about centrist populists opposed to the status quo? Horseshoe theory turns into W theory there.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Just because one agrees that the status quo doesn't work doesn't mean it inherently even makes sense to get behind the same guy to give it the wrecking ball.

[Sumner 1868]

It's a well-guarded secret in political analysis, but the fact is that self-described centrists are the least democratic of the three designated categories. It's true you find cases where the ends reach agreement where the middle disagrees, but it's no surprise the people who are screaming the loudest for internet censorship usually take a "both sides are dangerously radical" approach.

EDIT: This is also relevant.

[Cassius]

Not sure if characterizing the Molotov Ribbentrop pact as just 'opposition to the status quo' is correct

It was an agreement between two of the ‘out’ powers who had emerged as losers from World War I designed to undo the post-1919 territorial settlement in Europe, one (partly) established and (loosely) guaranteed by two of the victorious powers of World War I, so characterising it by its opposition to the status quo is very apposite, given the ideological gulf that otherwise existed between the two powers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

tbh the main driver of the "Horseshoe theory" these days is Russia and China's willingness to pay you off

[Ferguson97]

Opposition to the status quo is a component of horseshoe theory, but it is not the entirety of it.

[Mr. Smith]

While I’ll concede that there is oftentimes an overlap between right-wing and left-wing forces on important matters where there seems to be general consensus in other parties/across other parts of the political spectrum, does it really just boil down to the fact that it is usually those parties in or closer to the 'center' of the political spectrum that hold power and are therefore responsible for and unlikely to change the status quo, while both left-wing and right-wing parties are (naturally) either going to campaign against that for electoral purposes or genuinely interested in changing it?

It’s perhaps an oversimplification much like this theory is, but is "Horseshoe theory" really as surprising as many make it out to be? To me, it makes perfect sense from an electoral and practical-based standpoint.

Horseshoe is observation of two different phenomenon.

1: Authoritarians tends to use the same tactic no matter their ideology.
2: Powerless fringe groups tend to be full of the same kind of fecal matter no matter their ideology.

There’s nothing deeper to it.

Authoritarian Objectivists and Libertarians?