Fishhook Theory: When the Political Extremes Start Looking the Same

By Brian AJ Newman, LLB

Introduction

Political debate is often framed as a contest between the left and the right. For generations, political ideologies have been placed along a straight line, with socialism and communism occupying the far left, conservatism and fascism occupying the far right, and liberal democracy positioned somewhere in the middle.

Which best describes your political leanings?

• 0%Far Left
• 0%Left
• 0%Centrist
• 0%Far Right

See All Results

However, a growing body of political thought challenges this traditional understanding. Known as Fishhook Theory—more commonly referred to as Horseshoe Theory—it suggests that political extremism does not exist at opposite ends of a straight line. Instead, as ideologies become increasingly radical, the far left and far right begin to resemble one another in surprising and often disturbing ways.

While their stated objectives may differ dramatically, their methods, behaviours, and approaches to power frequently converge.

The Traditional Political Spectrum

Most people are familiar with the conventional political spectrum:

Far Left → Left → Centre → Right → Far Right

Under this model, the further one moves left, the more progressive and collectivist their views become. Conversely, moving right generally reflects greater support for tradition, nationalism, private enterprise, and individual responsibility.

This model assumes that the far left and far right are complete opposites.

Fishhook Theory rejects that assumption.

Fishhook Theory: When the Political Extremes Start Looking the Same

Understanding Fishhook Theory

Fishhook Theory proposes that political ideologies do not continue moving further apart indefinitely as they become more extreme.

Instead, the spectrum bends back on itself like a fishhook.

As movements become increasingly radical, the far left and far right often begin displaying remarkably similar characteristics.

These similarities can include:

• Hostility toward moderate viewpoints;

• Intolerance of dissent;

• Political tribalism;

• Suppression of opposing voices;

• Ideological purity tests;

• Acceptance of political violence;

• Authoritarian leadership structures;

• Distrust of democratic institutions; and

• Belief that the ends justify the means.

Under Fishhook Theory, extremists who appear to be ideological enemies may ultimately adopt many of the same tactics.

Historical Examples

Supporters of Fishhook Theory frequently compare totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.

Stalin’s Soviet Union

Under Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union promoted communist ideals centred upon class equality and state ownership.

Yet the regime became notorious for:

• Political purges;

• Forced labour camps;

• Mass surveillance;

• State censorship;

• Personality cults; and

• The suppression of political opposition.

Nazi Germany

Under Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany pursued radically different ideological objectives centred on racial hierarchy and ultranationalism.

However, the methods employed often looked strikingly similar:

• Secret police;

• Political imprisonment;

• Propaganda;

• Elimination of dissent;

• State control over public discourse; and

• Concentration of power in a single leader.

Despite their vastly different philosophies, both systems exhibited authoritarian characteristics that many proponents of Fishhook Theory view as evidence of convergence at the political extremes.

The Psychology of Extremism

Fishhook Theory is not merely about political institutions. It also examines human behaviour.

Extremist movements frequently display common psychological patterns regardless of ideology.

These include:

In-Group and Out-Group Thinking

Members are encouraged to divide society into allies and enemies.

Complex issues become simplified into moral absolutes.

People are either “with us” or “against us.”

Moral Certainty

Extremists often believe they possess absolute moral truth.

Opposing viewpoints are not merely considered incorrect; they are viewed as dangerous or illegitimate.

Dehumanisation

Political opponents may cease being seen as fellow citizens and instead become obstacles to be removed, silenced, or punished.

Revolutionary Urgency

Extreme movements often argue that extraordinary circumstances justify extraordinary measures.

Traditional democratic safeguards become viewed as barriers rather than protections.

Modern Political Relevance

Fishhook Theory has gained renewed attention in the era of social media.

Across the political spectrum, observers have noted similarities between certain far-left and far-right movements, including:

• Distrust of mainstream media;

• Rejection of established institutions;

• Conspiracy thinking;

• Opposition to globalisation;

• Hostility toward moderates; and

• Increasing political polarisation.

Importantly, these groups may arrive at similar conclusions for entirely different reasons.

The similarity lies less in ideology and more in behaviour.

Criticisms of Fishhook Theory

Fishhook Theory remains controversial and far from universally accepted.

It Oversimplifies Political Differences

Critics argue that comparing communist and fascist movements ignores profound differences regarding:

• Economic systems;

• Property rights;

• Equality;

• Nationalism; and

• Social organisation.

According to this view, similarities in behaviour should not obscure fundamental ideological distinctions.

It Focuses on Methods Rather Than Goals

Many political theorists contend that Fishhook Theory places excessive emphasis on how power is exercised while paying insufficient attention to why it is exercised.

The goals of fascism and socialism remain fundamentally different even if some authoritarian regimes have employed similar tactics.

It Can Be Used as a Political Weapon

Critics also caution that the theory is sometimes used rhetorically to dismiss legitimate political movements by equating them with extremist counterparts.

As a result, many academics regard Fishhook Theory as a useful observation rather than a comprehensive political model.

Lessons for Liberal Democracy

Whether one accepts Fishhook Theory entirely or not, it offers an important warning.

History demonstrates that democracy is threatened not only by one particular ideology but by any movement that seeks to concentrate power, suppress dissent, and undermine the institutions that protect individual freedoms.

The danger may not lie solely in left-wing or right-wing politics.

Rather, the danger emerges when political conviction evolves into ideological absolutism.

Liberal democracy depends upon:

• Freedom of expression;

• Respect for disagreement;

• Independent institutions;

• Due process;

• The rule of law; and

• The acceptance that reasonable people can hold different views.

When these principles are abandoned, the path toward authoritarianism becomes easier regardless of the ideology driving it.

Conclusion

Fishhook Theory challenges the traditional belief that political extremism exists at opposite ends of a straight line. It suggests that as ideologies become increasingly radical, the far left and far right can begin to resemble one another in their methods, behaviours, and attitudes toward power.

While the theory remains contested among political scientists, its central insight continues to resonate: extremism often produces similar outcomes regardless of where it originates on the political spectrum.

For defenders of democratic values, the lesson is clear. The preservation of liberty requires vigilance not only against particular ideologies but against any movement that seeks to silence dissent, concentrate power, and elevate political certainty above democratic principle.

Anything here sounds familiar to you in Australian politics?