“Say her name.” This phrase is resonating from Portland to Philadelphia as politicians express outrage over the shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. While some argue that the shooting aligns with the Supreme Court’s criteria for justifiable deadly force, others are attempting to use Good’s case as a rallying point for what they call the “resistance movement.”
Democrats nationwide are staging emotional press conferences, aiming to outdo one another by deeming Good’s shooting a “murder” and declaring a “war” against federal immigration enforcement. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) faced ridicule in the past for similar theatrics but seemed to recognize that, despite the backlash, there is an audience for such performances.
The narrative shifted soon after the shooting, with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey labeling the officer involved as a murderer and dismissing self-defense claims as “nonsense,” even telling ICE to leave the city. Critics felt compelled to respond to Frey’s outbursts, while he, somewhat mockingly, apologized if his language offended anyone.
This appears to have triggered a competition among Minnesota political leaders, with Governor Tim Walz also taking to cameras to criticize law enforcement. Democrats have been ramping up their inflammatory rhetoric, with Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) calling for the arrest of police officers and advocating for the removal of ICE’s legal protections. Goldman, enjoying congressional immunity himself, seems ready to challenge any pushback in order to secure his political future.
In Portland, officials expressed anger at ICE’s presence following the incident, despite two people shot being identified as suspected gang members with links to criminal activities. The reluctance of local police to reveal their gang affiliations stemmed from concerns over being accused of “historical injustices.”
The emotional reaction from some leaders is striking. Recently, Philadelphia’s District Attorney Larry Krasner went on record warning ICE that they would face arrest and conviction should they enter the city. Meanwhile, Sheriff Rochelle Bilal criticized ICE agents, calling them “false police wannabes” and threatening consequences for their actions.
This trend among politicians feels like they’re tapping into the unrest to gain traction. My recent book discusses how elected officials often manipulate public anger for their gain, but in doing so, they risk being overwhelmed by the very chaos they promote.
The problem with these performative moments is they seem less focused on genuine change and more on fueling an unprovoked fury. Some political figures are even hinting at using violent methods to push their agendas, evoking a voice of dissent that some may liken to historical revolutions. A call to arms by certain activists underlines this troubling trajectory, suggesting that they see their actions as a modern-day right.
What’s unfolding isn’t a quest for a better America, but rather a path that echoes past revolutions, where today’s radicals may find themselves facing the same backlash they’ve incited. It’s a complex situation, layered with contradictions and feelings of uncertainty that many can relate to today.
