The shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis is the latest event to bring to the surface the absurdities and contradictions of the political moment in which we live. As soon as the shooting took place the players assumed their pre-ordained positions and began to compete to frame the “narrative” of what happened.
The word narrative is in quotes because it represents one of those mindless formulations that allows the combatants to head into battle without mentioning the word truth. All that matters is controlling the story—i.e., the narrative.
By now many cell-phone videos have been released that purport to clarify what actually happened. None is conclusive. And in any event these efforts are doomed to failure. They will fail because by and large the contestants are not acting in good faith.
First, the varying contenders have already concocted back-up stories in the event they are proved wrong. Second, the standard for a federal criminal charge depends crucially on whether the agent in question honestly believed his life was in imminent danger. The armchair generals representing the respective sides have already decided that question; not on the merits, but on the politics of the matter, both local and national.
Note that the entire discussion has focused on whether the shooting itself was justified. But 18 U.S.C. § 111 and related provisions make it a crime to assault, resist, or impede federal officers — whether by bodily force or by using a vehicle in a threatening manner. If it turns out that Renee Good acted in such a manner, then she would be the responsible party under the law. That has not received any serious discussion.
Another fact that should be taken into consideration is that the politicians leading the charge have amassed impressive reputations as liars. Neither president Trump nor Governor Walz (or their administrations) has given us any reason to put any trust whatsoever in either of them. President Trump wouldn’t recognize the truth if it bit him, and neither would Governor Walz.
One of the great ironies of this situation is that (1) the two sides hate each other and (2) even if they don’t recognize it, they are in radical (if erroneous) agreement about the methods they use to justify their behavior. They simply disagree about their preferred outcomes. And neither is above fanning the flames to achieve their preferred political goals.
Consider one of the mindless pronouncements president Trump made the other day according to the New York Times. Trump Lays Out a Vision of Power Restrained Only by ‘My Own Morality’ Headline NY Times Page A1 January 8, 2026.
Now, how is that any different from the following quote from Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) who said “I want to be able to speak my mind, tell my truth and remain authentic.” Diane Rehm Show interview (and there are plenty of others like it.)
Short answer: It isn’t different at all.
Neither Donald J Trump, nor Corry Booker (and a whole lot of others, but primarily progressives), believe that there is such a thing as The Truth. It all depends on several favorite phrases of progressives, for instance “lived experience” or “context” or “it depends on where you sit”. Which is not to deny that context etc is important. It is.
But acknowledging the importance of context is not the same as denying that truth exists. To deny the idea of truth—even if we can never say that we know exactly what it is—is to deny the spiritual side of man that searches for transcendence. It leads to the seemingly bland assertion that the importance of an education is that it “teaches people how to think.” It throws out Mathew Arnold’s famous dictum that education consists of “The best that has been thought and said.”
For the likes of Donald Trump and Cory Booker et.al. there is no such thing as right and wrong. After all, who are we to say that X is even preferable to Y, much less right or wrong? Are not all cultures and civilizations equal?
For the progressive mindset it is really about power and control. Michael Foucault for instance argued that power and knowledge aren’t separate; scientific/expert knowledge creates categories e.g.—criminal, homosexual, insane that exert power by defining and correcting behavior.
Who can deny that is what the modern political class believes? They don’t deny the method, they just look for different outcomes and so they differentiate the incentive structures they impose. The power to create those incentives and to try to control behavior is their goal.
Ultimately they believe that man is a blank slate and a slave to his passions. In this view, mankind is not a collection of individuals. Instead mankind represents a collection of identity groups, to be catered to or not depending on who holds power.
Progressives want to create a new man, for a utopia on earth. People are not individuals, each with his own thoughts, hopes, dreams and aspirations. They represent that statistical abstraction so favored by social scientists: populations. People are merely automatons that respond to certain stimuli in the aggregate.
Any who doubts this, should consider the inaugural address of Zohran Mamdani, New York’s new mayor. Mamdani ran as a Democratic Socialist and has said he intends to govern like one. In his address he said wanted to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”
Strap in.
JFB
