By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis has sparked a heated debate, mirroring existing political divisions. While some prominent conservatives, including Donald Trump Jr. and Benny Johnson, have criticized Good and blamed her for her death, others like Ben Shapiro and JD Vance have acknowledged it as a tragedy but ultimately found her at fault. Tucker Carlson, however, criticized fellow conservatives for prioritizing political point-scoring over human empathy in their response. The contradictory accounts of the incident are exemplified by the differing views from the President and the Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey on the events leading to the shooting.
Read the original article here
Tucker Carlson, in a surprising turn of events, is calling out the right wing for what he sees as their exploitative response to the Minneapolis shooting. It’s a sentiment that has sparked a wave of reactions, ranging from genuine surprise to outright skepticism. The news that Carlson is criticizing the right for seeking “political points” and failing to see Renee Good’s death “through a human lens” is a noteworthy development.
It seems his criticism stems from the right’s reaction to the death of Renee Good, who was fatally shot by an ICE agent. Carlson’s recent newsletter expressed that, regardless of differing views on immigration, her death is a tragedy, particularly because she was a mother. This stance has, understandably, generated a lot of buzz. Many are questioning the sincerity of his words, given his history of using tragedies to further his own political agenda. The fact that he was given exclusive access to Jan 6 security footage and then aired an edited version of it is fresh in everyone’s minds.
The consensus appears to be that the hypocrisy here is almost palpable. How can someone who has spent years on television normalizing the exploitation of tragic events now decry the same behavior in others? There’s a prevailing sense that Carlson’s shift is either calculated, a contrarian move to maintain relevance, or possibly, a strategic attempt to own the right as it potentially implodes. It is also important to note that many wonder if this is an attempt to distance himself from the current MAGA movement, which is pro-Israel.
The criticisms aimed at Carlson are vast. Many people are pointing out that Carlson’s shift appears to be self-serving and opportunistic. There’s a general feeling that he doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously, especially considering his history of supporting the right and demonizing the left. People view him as a partisan hack and a grifter who is only changing his tune because it benefits him. The argument that he is merely a broken clock, right twice a day, also seems to be common.
Many people are acknowledging that despite his dubious past and motivations, there’s a kernel of truth in what Carlson is saying. His comments seem to reflect a growing fracture within the right, particularly between the populist and the more corporate-aligned factions. This is the crux of the problem: While people are acknowledging the point he’s making, his history with these issues makes him an untrustworthy source. The fact that even some right-wing commentators are now questioning the right’s tactics speaks volumes.
The overall sentiment is that even if Carlson’s condemnation of the right is accurate, it is hard to give him any credit for it. It is difficult to overcome the years of propaganda and division he has helped to create. One question that remains is whether this will actually change anything within the right-wing ecosystem.