So, it didn't take you a couple of discussions to learn what they believe?

Again, it's all about the particulars.

Most of us carry around a heuristic of what we think conservatives believe, just as they have one about what progressives believe. But that heuristic is just an overly generalized model and is probably going to be wrong (or incomplete) on lots of details. And you can't really make sense of what a group of folks might be thinking about any specific situation or dispute without finding out more stuff about that particular issue.

To summarize that in this context, I would refer folks to Van Jones' excellent summary of the two very different ways that conservatives and progressives view ICE enforcement. What Jones thinks is the conservative perspective is below. I've edited a little for length (so warning - some of his text is missing), but it is a nutshell.

The point is, if you're going to have any chance of trying to persuade people who aren't rabid MAGA, but are still conservative leaning, you have to understand this perspective about the specifics of Minnesota. You know how off-base you think a conservative poster might sound when he tries to describe to liberals what liberals think? Because he doesn't understand what liberals think and instead operates off of his heuristic of what he thinks liberals think without trying to understand where his heuristic might be wrong, it's impossible for him to make a compelling argument.

It's also why labelling conservatives as FASCIST doesn't work. Because none of the below beliefs scans as "fascist" to them, and when they present these beliefs to potentially persuadable third parties they won't necessarily scan as "fascist" to those third parties either. These are all contestable claims (and Jones goes on to contest them in the discussion of progressive perspectives), but they aren't inherently fascist claims.

If you don't bother to understand the conservative lens and how they frame these things, you can't be effective in the "marketplace of ideas." And since you can't force conservatives out of the marketplace by not engaging with them (and probably shouldn't be able to), that means you have to engage.

When many conservatives look at Minneapolis, they see a clear story.

ICE is law enforcement. Period.
For conservative commentators, there’s no meaningful distinction between ICE and your local police department. A badge is a badge. An order is an order. Disobeying “law enforcement” is a serious violation – full stop.

These arrests are needed for public safety.
The emphasis in right-wing information ecosystems is on violent criminals and drug traffickers. They also fear terrorism and radicalism; they worry that the United States will become like Europe, which they see as a land overrun with Muslim extremists.

The protests aren’t an act of conscience. They’re an act of obstruction.
The analogy is “you wouldn’t block police officers.” They see people physically interfering with legitimate law enforcement and escalating danger for agents on the scene.

The shooting of Renee Good was self-defense.
A vehicle advancing head-on towards an agent is a weapon. If your social media feed shows only the video angles that show danger to the ICE agent, the Left’s outrage looks phony and unhinged.

Democratic leaders are politicizing public safety.
The Right sees lawsuits against ICE as the Left choosing chaos over order. When liberal officials align with protesters, conservatives see Democratic office-holders as undermining the security of our nation and jeopardizing our freedom. Why? Just to score political points.

Now here’s the key: conservatives are not pretending.

Based on what they’re seeing, conservatives genuinely believe that if we don’t support immigration enforcement, we won’t have a country. And they believe progressive protestors are trying to make legitimate law enforcement impossible.

From inside that reality, abolishing ICE sounds as insane as abolishing the fire department.

vanjones.substack.com - America isnt divided on ice its divided