Renee Good’s Killing Has Unleashed MAGA’s Misogyny - by Jeet Heer

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

This article is astonishing on one hand, and predictable on the other. Astonishing is its raw, brain-dead bias, and predictable in its fidelity to The Narrative. 

As soon as Ms. Good was shot by law enforcement the Talking Points Generator got to work to craft the Leftist Narrative. The Left always wants to get a jump on the way an issue is viewed by quickly crafting their version of it. That version will be disseminated throughout the media landscape as quickly and thoroughly as possible. This serves to negate any competing characterization of the incident.

So the author is all set up to mock, accuse, and attack any statement or opinion that violates The Narrative, because The Narrative quickly becomes "common knowledge," and dissent from it is then extremist, misogynistic, racist, et cetra ad nauseum.

This is the nature of Leftist agitprop. It's purpose is not to inform, provide facts, or add to understanding. No, it's purpose is to promulgate The Narrative.

-------------------------------------

To defend the indefensible, the right is going after white women as race traitors.

The killing of 37-year-old mother of three Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis last Wednesday has shocked the world and become a political nightmare for the Trump administration.

The proper response to this horrific killing would be an independent and transparent investigation. Instead, the Trump administration has chosen the path of stonewalling, cover-up, and demonizing the victim—including by making sexist and homophobic attacks against Good. (Let's see if the author can identify any sexist or homophobic remarks. Hint: He can't.)

The Trump administration immediately went on the offensive. Vice President JD Vance denounced Good as a “deranged leftist” who created “a tragedy of her own making.” (Justifiable opinion.)

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asserted that Good was a “domestic terrorist.” (Justifiable opinion.)

 A New York Post headline described Good as a “Warrior of the Left.” (Justifiable opinion.)

It will surprise nobody that the government and its allies are blatantly lying about both Good and the circumstances of her death.  (Let's see if the author can identify any lies. Hint: He can't.)

Analysis by The New York Times and others of the many videos taken of the shooting demonstrates that the White House’s account is wholly at odds with the evidence. ("Wholly?" That's quite a claim. The Left says Good was a mom dropping her kid off at school. The Right says she was an anti-ICE activist who struck a law enforcement officer with her SUV. The video shows her vehicle arranged to block the street and her failing to obey the lawful command of a law enforcement officer. So, which scenario seems "wholly at odds with the evidence?")

Apart from the fact that shooting at a moving vehicle goes against standard guidelines for police conduct, (Mother Jones? Really? C'mon.)

the videos show that ICE agents were belligerent and unprofessional, (This is not a crime.)

and that Good herself was clearly trying to de-escalate the situation. (How did Ms. Good get into a situation that required her to de-escalate it?)

Her last words were a comment to the officer who would soon kill her: “I’m not mad at you.” (She's not mad at him but hits him with her SUV, causing him internal injuries.)

After Good was shot, one ICE agent seems to have yelled out, “Fucking bitch.” ("Seems." Well, anyway, none of this matters because none of it has anything to do with the committing of a crime.)

None of these facts matter to the White House and its MAGA outriders, though. (How does the author know what matters to the White House or MAGA people? Does he have some sort of inside information?)

The comments by Noem and Vance were bad enough, (They were? By what standard is "deranged leftist" or "domestic terrorist" beyond the pale? Especially since the author himself has engaged in these kinds of comments. 

For example: 

• the authoritarian turn of the GOP
• extremist agenda
• a GOP Congress will be a freak show
• bedtime for Bozo

Or hundreds more pejorative characterizations of his political opponents, particularly the hated Trump. This of course means that the author is engaging in offense by convenience.)

but they were echoed by even more extreme language by pundits who fleshed out the idea that Good was dangerous (and therefore guilty of her death and perhaps deserving of it). The demonization of Good had a strong gender element and focused on her personal sexual identity as a lesbian. (The author will offer no examples.)

These attacks also highlighted the fact that she was a white woman who sacrificed her life for non-white immigrants, (?? The author will later claim she was murdered. But at this point she offered herself is noble sacrifice for the sake of poor black people. Or she was just a "37-year-old mother of three." Take your pick, depending on which narrative is convenient at the moment.)

with the implication that she was a race traitor. (The author will offer no examples.)

The attacks on Good are remarkable for their ugliness and derangement. (Irony Alert. The Left has engaged in some truly awful name-calling. In fact, it's their modus operandi. Nazi. Dictator. Misogynist. Hater. Racist. Does the author recognize any of these monikers regularly trotted out by his fellow leftist commentators, as well as he himself?)

A few major ones should be highlighted.

Erick Erickson, a radio host who has in the past been a commentator on CNN and Fox News, tweeted, “An AWFUL (Affluent White Female Urban Liberal) is dead after running her car into an ICE agent who opened fire on her. Progressive whites are turning violent. ICE agents have the right to defend themselves.” (A justifiable and completely non-offensive characterization.)

Naomi Wolf, a onetime liberal who has become increasingly supportive of the far right since her promotion of anti-vaxxing ideas in 2021, posted:

I’ve seen enough videos of the faces of liberal white women in conflict with @ICE, to know what is up. Liberal men at this point (sorry) are disproportionately estrogenized, physically passive, submissive due to woke gender hectoring, or porn-addicted. White liberal women are disproportionately sexually frustrated. Policing others as in the pandemic was an outlet for them, but it was not nearly enough. The smiles you see on their faces now say it all: white women long for all out combat with ICE – who tend to be strong, physically confident, masculine men – because the conflict is a form of physical release for them. They long for actual kinetic battle and it will get even uglier. (An justifiable and perceptive opinion.)

It’s hard to know how to respond to Wolf’s screed. (Hey, how about you give it a try, Mr. Heer? It shouldn't be too hard to refute if it's a "screed.")

The idea that women are made insane by a lack of heterosexual satisfaction (Ms. Wolf did not make this claim.)

is the type of pseudo-science that was common in the mid-20th century but which has been refuted by generations of feminist scholarship. (Contradiction in terms.)

Further, the fact that Good was a lesbian makes Wolf’s analysis absurd. (Mr. Heer seems to have a reading comprehension problem. Ms. Wolf was clearly making generalizations about toxic white liberal women.)

To be sure, Wolf is notorious for her complete disregard for scholarly standards, (Was Ms. Wolf making a scholarly claim?)

so much so that her 2019 book Outrages was canceled by the publisher after it was shown that its core arguments rested on a deep misunderstanding of archival records. (Mr. Heer is doing his best to Pollute the Well, first by characterizing her as moving towards the "far right," then by calling her X post a screed, and finally by pointing to a problem with one of her books. 

His best criticism of her X post is that it is absurd. That's it.)

Lauren Chen, a right-wing media entrepreneur who allegedly has been funded by a Russian media influence campaign, posted, “This liberal woman was willing to take on federal agents, to disrupt ICE operations, in order to protect criminal Somalis.” (A justifiable and completely conventional opinion.)

According to Chen, “this type of thinking is almost wholly responsible for the decline of Western civilization.” (A justifiable and completely conventional opinion.)

Matt Walsh, host of a podcast and regular writer for The Daily Wire, made the same point in even more repugnant terms: “This lesbian agitator gave her life to protect 68 IQ Somali scammers who couldn’t give less of a shit about her.” (Though profane and inelegant, a justifiable and completely conventional opinion.)

Some have been puzzled by the fact that MAGA, a movement of white nationalism, (Undocumented accusation, and irrelevant.)

is so quick to demonize white women. ("Demonize?" Notice how the author is escalating his language. And, notice also that the author has isolated the equation to race, gender, and sexual orientation, but has absolutely no evidence that the criticism of Good involves any of these factors.

If the driver had been a straight white male, the Right would still accurately call him an leftist anti-ICE agitator. Of course, a straight white male would probably be characterized as a far-right white nationalist, because that's what the Left traditionally does.)

But there is no paradox here. White nationalism (?? The author invokes "white nationalism" for a second time.)

depends on a certain type of white woman: someone who is “loyal” to the white race and compliant with patriarchy. (Undocumented, and in fact, nonsensical.)

The ideal white woman follows the classic model of barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen as well as being obedient to a male husband. (Undocumented, and in fact, nonsensical.)

Renee Good didn’t follow the MAGA ideal on a number of fronts, both as a lesbian and as an activist for immigrant rights. (Sigh... The author descends into irrationality.

Notice now that Ms. Good is no longer a 37 year old mom. She's an activist and a lesbian.)

On their own terms, MAGA is right to hate Good; (No one hates Good.)

she lived in defiance of their ideals. (Oh, so this mom lived in defiance. The goalposts continue to shift.)

But for the majority of people who aren’t MAGA, Good’s defiance of reactionary norms was admirable. (Only the extreme Left admires Good.)

The fact that MAGA is so intent on demonizing Good (This of course didn't happen.)

shows that the defense of her killing rests on thin ice. (?? Criticism of controverial behavior is admissible as evidence in court? What?)

After all, if it were clear-cut that Ross was acting in self-defense, any discussion of Good’s character would be unnecessary. (The author makes up his own criteria. But the fact of the matter is people of all stripes are taking sides on this matter. The author doesn't get to give his side a pass.)

But precisely because the evidence doesn’t support the self-defense narrative, (The author must be a legal scholar of some remarkable ability to make an arms-length determination of guilt, based only on a couple of phone videos.

Who can take this man seriously?)

MAGA is trying to shore up support by portraying Good as someone who deserved to die. (No one is doing this. Get a grip, dude.)

This defamation (!!) of a murdered woman is itself proof of the moral depravity of MAGA.