I tend to think of the American political spectrum as broadly dividing into six major groups (political “tribes” we might say), arranged very roughly from left to right, though I must note that there are serious differences within tribes as much as between them. Going left-to-right, there is first (1) The Left, who are the sort of left-leaning folks who get upset if you call them liberals and are committed to more aggressive forms of socialism that envision and end to or massive curtailment of things like markets. Your actual Marxists go here. Then moving right there are (2) Progressives, who are generally committed to liberalism as a philosophy, but favor large-scale government intervention inside that framework to reshape society (“progressivism”), which they believe can be reshaped for the better. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC go here; some of these folks will call themselves social democrats, evoking the form of this ideology in Europe. Then you have (3) Left-Liberals (“Social Liberals”), who have the same ideological components as the progressives (progressivism+liberalism), but with an inversion of the emphasis, where the individual liberty claim of liberalism is the dominant strain over the society-reshaping goals of progressivism. This is where the mainstream and especially moderate wings of the Democratic party sits.
Then on the right you have (4) Right-liberals (“Classical liberals”), who share liberalism with groups (2) and (3) but reject (or at least substantially challenge) the idea that society can be “engineered” with positive results. This group largely left the Republican party between 2016 and the present (though some were already libertarians). Notably, (3) and (4) in the United States tend to share hawkish anti-authoritarian, anti-communist foreign policy views; this is where the foreign policy “blob” lives. To their right are (5) Traditionalist Conservatives. Because the United States was founded as a liberal country, they tend to still hold some liberal views (and respond well to liberal, “freedom-centered” framing) but their main ideological commitment is generally conservative in its literal meaning of being traditionalist, desiring things to not change or to recover that which has changed and there is a willingness to compromise on liberalism in the pursuit of that. This, I’d argue, is where the core of the Republican Party currently exists. Finally, you have (6) Right-Authoritarians, who come in various forms based on the authority they believe ought to structure society, e.g. populist authoritarians are fascists, whereas Catholic religious authoritarians are integralists and so on. But the core idea here is that there exists an authority, be it the “national will” (invariably channeled by an individual charismatic leader and often herrenvolk in nature) or tradition or the church or whatever else, which has a right to structure society which supersedes individual liberties. For our purposes, they key is they generally despise liberalism because it places limits on that authority. They tend to insist that liberalism makes societies weak even as liberal societies pound their favorite dictators into dust over and over again.
To put the spectrum another way, we might think in terms of publications: Jacobin (1) <-> Vox (2) <-> The Atlantic (3) <-> The Bulwark/Dispatch (4) <-> National Review (5); few major publications openly identify as being in (6) in the United States, but you can see editors at The Federalist or First Things platform political visions that [derive] from it. To the degree to which “horse-shoe theory” works it is because the thing that The Left and the Right-Authoritarians have in common is that they believe in an effectively unlimited claim on the individual by the community, whereas the core of liberal ideology is that the social claim on the individual is and must be limited.
Bret Devereaux, In a footnote to “Collections: The Philosophy of Liberty – On Liberalism”, A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry, 2024-07-05.
