How to Talk About the ICE Killing with Folks on the Right
This is a tough one—all the more reason to have this conversation
I was planning this week to publish “How to Talk About Venezuela with Folks on the Right,” but yesterday’s events in Minneapolis have shoved that topic to the side for now.
I’ve written before about how specifically triggering ICE (and CBP) aggressions and violations are to me, as someone who spent half this past fall in Chicago (where I live most of the time), and as someone who’s deeply triggered by bullying, cruelty, and injustice. It upsets me personally and viscerally more than most any other of the endless, ongoing Trump offenses.
I won’t list all the things horrific and wrong and illegal about what happened to Renee Good yesterday in Minneapolis—everyone everywhere on social media, regular media, alternative media is on full blast about the details and implications. It’s shattering and terrifying and infuriating—both the death itself and the sadly predictable spin reactions and negative-partisan responses from the Administration and extremist social-media rage-engagers.
Nor do I have magic fix-all’s for this. I fully support the peaceful activist efforts forming around it, as well as any legal and oversight efforts by Minnesota and Congress. I also suspect and would understand if there are plenty of progressives who feel that this is no longer the time for talking with Trump voters, that this is a battle and must be fought through protest and activism.
But the guiding force of this Smart Politics work and my dedication to it is that when shocking, upsetting things like this happen it shakes up everyone’s values and beliefs—including those progressives who understandably felt a reactive, defensive rage yesterday, but also Trump voters who are struggling to make this seemingly blatant killing align with their political beliefs.
So, if we’re serious about lowering polarization and even persuading Trump voters to align with us on some issues—for example, how ICE conducts itself—then we need to talk with them, and sadly, tragic moments like this are when we most need to do that. It’s also when we may feel least able to talk about something so upsetting to us.
My work is here in Smart Politics, so that’s going to be my first go-to. In part that’s because this past year I’ve found when I’m freaking out, the best solution is shoving myself back into this work.
I wrote a few months ago about “How to Talk About ICE with Folks on the Right,” and all those main points still apply. If you haven’t read that piece already, I suggest giving it a look, or a reminder refresh.
But I want to add to it how to start—or rather, not start a conversation about this week’s specific atrocity. (With the sinking feeling that this won’t be the last time something like this happens.)
The killing of Renee Good this week feels like an escalation, a new level of horrifying and enraging atrocity. And yet… part of this Smart Politics work is stepping back, processing our own (understandably) extreme emotional and moral reactions, and then thinking about how we do the work around this new outrage.
As always, we start with the “Don’ts” and the usual caveat that this doesn’t mean we can’t eventually discuss some of these things with a Trump voter. They’re just not a good place to start the conversation because they’re likely to put the other person even more on the defensive.
Don’t Start the Conversation With…
“How can anyone deny what we clearly see in the videos?”
In November when I wrote about how to talk about ICE, I suggested that much of the time the Trump voter we’re talking with has not seen the shocking, infuriating ICE videos we have. That may not be the case today—the video of Good’s death is everywhere today. So, the problem becomes not that folks haven’t seen it, but that they’re seeing in it something completely different than we do.
Some have compared the wide-ranging reactions to the shooting to the Black-Blue/White-Gold Dress sensation from the internet 10 years ago. There’s some validity to that. The colors people’s visual brain processors saw in the infamous dress photo were determined by complicated, life-long brain chemistry development—namely how our brains are trained over time to make assumptions that alter our perceptions.
Similarly, what someone emotionally “sees” in the shooting yesterday—deadly ICE incompetence and cruelty against an innocent citizen or law enforcement acting in self-defense against a “terrorist protester”—is shaped by their background, social and political identity, and values.
If there’s one thing we learn from this work, it’s just how powerful and often self-sabotaging our own minds are. We see what we want to see. Yes, political monsters like Trump and Noem and Miller have very specific diabolical and perhaps sociopathic survival instincts that lead them to deny, lie, and gaslight about what happened (including the need to avoid legal accountability). And hardcore social media influencers and partisan edge lords have their own financial and identity-fueling reasons to deliberately and knowingly lie about it in support of their political ecosystems.
But the average person who watches those videos is also still going to see (perhaps after tamping down a bit of cognitive dissonance and confusion) what their background, beliefs, and values want them to see. We progressives may find it impossible to believe that anyone can watch those videos and not see things our way, but the fact is, people do—they may take their cues from the media they consume, but they use those cues to help them see and filter the video in ways that align with their own genuine, sincere, deep, unconscious beliefs.
To varying degrees (everyone is different, that’s why we ask questions in the first place!), how someone on the Right interprets the video is driven by their feelings and values around law and order, law enforcement, and immigration and deportation, but even more so by support for their “in-group” political “team” (Trump and Noem), fear of “Antifa Leftist Terrorism,” and perhaps frustration and disgust with “out-group” progressive protesters. As they watch the video, their brains are often seeking ways to make what they see support their beliefs that, “Leftist protestors are bad and create chaos; law enforcement is good and preserves order.”
That doesn’t mean they don’t initially see the shooting as confusing and maybe wrong or bad, but given enough time and influence from the the leading voices in their in group, folks’ natural inclination is to move towards accepting the explanation that will cause them the least cognitive dissonance and the least risk to their identity. They almost immediately start looking for excuses, rationalizations, and justifications that will allow them to shove this horrific tragedy into a neat little box that fits their beliefs about the world and set it aside so they can move on.
Of course, that initial confusion and cognitive dissonance is also exactly why we should talk with friends and loved ones on the Right about these things right now.
Debating forensic investigation facts:
“Which way were Good’s tires turned?”
“Where was the ICE officer standing when he fired his weapon?”
“Was he ever in physical danger?”
“Is this the correct procedure for law enforcement in this situation?”
What we do not want to do is get trapped in a downward rabbit-hole spiral, both sides bogged down in studying the disturbing video frame by frame as we cosplay being CSI forensic investigation experts. Those things may all come up sooner or later in the conversation as the other person tries to defend what happened, but for the sake of productive conversation, we ourselves shouldn’t start there.
Remember, we’re here to work through feelings first, not facts.
“ICE is evil! Trump is evil! Noem is evil!”
Two standing Smart Politics guidelines come into play here:
1) Try not to make sweeping hyperbolic statements about the issue (calling organizations, actions, or individuals “evil”), no matter how much we may emotionally want to or feel the terms are justified.
2) Whenever possible, at least at first, avoid venting our hatred for specific political individuals, like Trump or Noem or Miller or Vance. Trust me, I get it, I feel it myself, I often say it out loud in angry frustration or vent it to friends. But this work is always about managing our own emotions first before entering a conversation.
Need a new-year refresher on managing our emotions? Check out Dr. Tamerius’ writings last year on Keeping Calm and Carrying On to do the work:
Every time we call a Trump Administration figure a nasty name or rant about how awful they are, we likely forfeit the opportunity to have an effective, persuasive conversation with the other person. They hear that name-calling, the outrage in our voices, and they put up their defenses, roll their eyes ‘cause they’ve heard it all before, and finally simply dismiss our rant and any subsequent points we’re trying to make. It bounces right off.
Yes, if we can continue a productive conversation with someone from the Right about this incident, then we may eventually want to discuss how Trump and his administration’s policies and posture created this terrible situation and how they’ve been responding to it. But only later, once we’ve banked some trust and connection.
“These Fascists want to kill us all!”
As we all struggle through this first year, there are certain words we need to, if not retire from our vocabulary when talking to folks on the Right, as least wrap carefully in bubble wrap to be used only in limited amounts. “Fascists” and “fascism” are some of those. Which is not to say we aren’t seeing terrifying, enraging increases in what most of us would consider fascist thinking and behavior, or that we should not be vigilant and deeply opposed to it. It’s fine and often necessary to use those words when talking to fellow progressives about the dangers of what we’re seeing.
It just means that using those terms or calling those names in conversation with a Trump voter is, once again, gonna shut the other person down. “Fascist” has lost all meaning to many folks on the Right simply because they hear it tossed around so much as a catch-all slur. Justified or not, the word rarely works with them anymore, and instead, of course, it just pushes them further away, preventing any sort of real conversation that could potentially help us prevent and fight fascism.
Remember always to ask ourselves, do we want to be right (let everyone know this is fascist behavior!) or effective (helping others understand why this behavior is fascist and un-American and un-democratic)?
“Pro-Trump, pro-ICE supposed Christians are hateful, fake hypocrites!”
Need we say it again? No one likes having all their layers of self-identity challenged, undermined, or called names. It rarely breaks someone out of that identity – much more often, it just drives them in the opposite direction, deeper into that safe, secure identity. Scream it into a paper bag if you must get it out of your system, but don’t expect it to have any positive or constructive result in a real conversation.
Do Start the Conversation With…
Instead of those kinds of questions, accusations, and assertions, it’s always better for us to start by simply asking the other person what they feel and think about what happened; how they see and frame it.
We shouldn’t be surprised if the other person’s initial take on the shooting is neither what we progressives saw and think nor what we might expect and fear from the worst rage-baiting agitating right-wing influencers in the media and on social media. Always remember, pundits and social-media agitators are probably not who we’re talking with. The people we talk to about the killing of Good are likely average folks who are often just as shocked and confused as we are. They may turn out to agree with us on more than we thought. Or maybe not.
So, as always, we ask them what they think
Did you see the video from Minneapolis of ICE agents engaging with the woman in the car?
Yes, that sort of neutral language can feel like a white-washing betrayal of what we are thinking and want to say, but this is why we practice this work.
How do you feel about it?
Give them time. Their thoughts and feelings may be complicated, confused, even contradictory. Let them sit with their reactions and process them in real time as you gently ask follow ups.
How do you feel ICE and other law enforcement officials should act in these situations?
Do they feel ICE acted appropriately and legally? Or do they feel mistakes were made under extreme, stressful circumstances? Maybe they’re confused and not sure what they’re seeing or what to think of it.
If we don’t want things like this to happen again, what do you feel can be done to prevent it?
Always work to find common ground, shared values, and to position ourselves as potential allies with the other person, working together when possible to think about possible solutions.
Keep the conversation going
As always, those questions are not a hard and fast map – how the other person responds to any of them will determine how we follow up, using the Persuasion Conversation Cycle as our guide:
Listen to the other person’s replies to try to understand their views.
Reflect and summarize the other person’s perspective by repeating what you heard them say.
Validate their emotions and identify and name areas of common ground.
Once we’ve established a baseline understanding of where the other person is coming from in regard to this week’s shooting, we can pivot to a larger discussion about ICE and their actions, as outlined in my previous piece:
How to Talk About ICE with Folks on the Right
A personal reminder to us and myself not to let high emotions end a conversation before it gets started.
What is the Smart Politics Way?
Smart Politics encourages and teaches progressives to have more productive conversations with Trump voters. We believe the most effective actions for achieving short- and long-term progressive goals involve talking one-on-one with and listening compassionately and constructively to folks with different opinions.
More on our work:
Want to learn more about Smart Politics and get involved?
Every Sunday night (and some Wednesdays), we meet on Zoom to teach, share, and support one another. Sign up for email recaps and reminders about these weekly calls
Locke Peterseim is the Smart Politics Content Manager.
I’ve been longing for this guide today. Thank you!
On the first Don't...
There are few moments where I feel like I understand where a current American Republican is coming from. I've been trying to figure that out for about 2 years now.
But this is one of those times. I saw the two close range videos and think it is obvious that, whatever the judicial system ends up saying, the killing was not necessary for anyone's safety.
Then I saw the distant video, with the grainy resolution and muddy colors. And I thought of Smart Politics and I thought of everything I know about news spin, and I knew that if I'd only seen this cruddy quality video, I'd think the shooter was clipped by the car hard and thrown back. Surprised he's come out of being "run over" as well as he did. I'd be wrong, based on the other two videos, but if this was all I saw - with its lack of depth and color - that's what I'd think. And I'm sure plenty of people have only been shown this video and likely - quite understandably - haven't sought out anything else.