The death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk last year sparked widespread criticism from the right when some online users appeared to mock or even celebrate his passing. Figures like Matt Walsh decried this behavior, suggesting that even Kirk’s fiercest opponents would mourn him if the roles were reversed. Yet, when Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis this week, a strikingly different response emerged from many of the same voices.
Instead of condemnation, some right-wing commentators and followers openly mocked Good’s death. Walsh himself referred to her as a “lesbian agitator” who died protecting “68 IQ Somali scammers,” echoing xenophobic rhetoric often employed by President Trump. Social media replies were even more brutal, with one user calling her death “nature’s course correction.”
The hypocrisy is stark: while Kirk’s death was framed as a tragedy regardless of political affiliation, Good’s death was weaponized as justification for further division. Even Trump weighed in, blaming Good for her own death by calling her a “professional agitator.” Video footage of the shooting shows Good attempting to maneuver her vehicle around ICE agents when an officer fired three shots through her windshield, killing her instantly.
Remarkably, Tucker Carlson, a prominent conservative voice, found the vitriol unsettling, questioning why so few on the right were approaching the situation with basic human empathy. “Her death is a tragedy, regardless of her partisan affiliations,” he wrote, a sentiment noticeably absent from the president’s response.
Political scientists explain this phenomenon as extreme confirmation bias. Todd Belt, from George Washington University, notes that people seek explanations that align with their existing beliefs. This tribalism has reached a point where even basic human decency is discarded in favor of partisan loyalty.
Steven W. Webster, a researcher at Indiana University, highlights the dangers of “partisan dehumanization.” Treating political opponents as less than human opens the door to hostility and derision, as seen in the aftermath of Good’s death. Mark Brockway, from Syracuse University, argues that this isn’t just about conservatives versus liberals; it’s about an all-consuming “fight” where anyone resisting the dominant narrative becomes an enemy.
The situation is so polarized that even Carlson’s measured response drew criticism from some who accused him of “decaying” from his past hardline stance. The underlying issue isn’t just disagreement; it’s a refusal to acknowledge shared humanity.
Reducing political anger and encouraging leaders to denounce extremism are vital steps toward de-escalation. As Webster concludes, the more political elites discourage tribalism, the better chance we have of avoiding further descent into suspicion, hostility, and derision.
