Dowd and Out

I think it’s awful that MSNBC fired Matthew Dowd as a commentator. He’s a smart, great analyst – and his career as a consultant has long been for Republicans. In fact, he was the chief political consultant for the W. Bush presidential campaign.

While on an MSNBC panel, during the emotional time dealing with the shooting death of Charlie Kirk, host Katy Tur asked Dowd to talk about “the environment in which a shooting like this happens.”

And so Dowd answered the question, making clear that there were not yet any details of the shooting, but trying to put it in the context of the question that Tur specifically asked, which once again was “the environment in which a shooting like this happens.”

Being a thoughtful, smart professional, he attempted to put it all in context – live on the air, without time to prepare in such a difficult moment. (For context, when I wrote my article on the similar subject yesterday, it took me a couple of hours for the first draft. And then I did about three more drafts. Matthew Dowd had to immediately answer. And that’s his job, it’s why he’s there. But it’s still a challenging matter, no matter how professional. Live, on the air, talk.)

And even Dowd himself acknowledged later that he spoke more bluntly in the immediacy of the moment. And even apologized for that. He said, “My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Charlie Kirk. On an earlier appearance on MSNBC I was asked a question on the environment we are in. I apologize for my tone and words. Let me be clear, I in no way intended for my comments to blame Kirk for this horrendous attack. Let us all come together and condemn violence of any kind.”

What Dowd said in his answer, when asked about “the environment” of the shooting – noting that there were no details yet -- was: “He’s been one of the most divisive, especially divisive, younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech aimed at certain groups. And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.

“And I think that’s the environment we’re in. You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place. And that’s the unfortunate environment we are in.”

Charlie Kirk was divisive. He said that some shooting deaths were necessary each year. He said that slaves committed fewer crimes than Black people do today. He said that his “tolerance with the American Jews” was at the level of “nothing,” and that "my patience has completely run out” with them. And he said much more that was much worse. He was divisive. He was a provocateur, always pushing hate speech. He was a bigot, racist and anti-Semite.

And I think most everyone knows from childhood that if you punch someone, they’ll punch back. If you yell at someone, they’ll yell back. And that hateful thoughts do lead to hateful words. Which leads to hateful actions. I think if you asked someone the day before the shooting if all that was true, almost everyone would answer, “Yes, of course!” If you saw terrible things, you can’t not expect that, at some point, there will be terrible actions.

That doesn’t mean you’re responsible for the terrible actions. Saying something reprehensible doesn’t mean anyone has a right to shoot and kill you. They don’t. That’s on them, entirely. It’s a crime. It’s murder. But it’s committed in an environment of hate, and environment of violence – an environment which has been created by many, over many years. That’s “the environment” this took place in.

(It’s worth adding that there is legal precedent where hate speech was intended to provoke violence, and the person speaking was charged with a hate crime and convicted. That is not the case here. Just noting that words do have power, and a legal responsibility.)

What Matthew Dowd said had a great deal of truth in it, answering the question about “the environment.” But he didn’t have the luxury of taking the time to put everything in a larger context and explain his meaning. And so what he said came across poorly. Which he later recognized and actually apologized for.

If MSNBC thought what he said was intemperate, then have him apologize on the air and suspend him for two weeks, or even for a month. But he said something that was not only largely correct, but which I’m sure most people largely agree with – especially if it had been said the day before -- but he just phrased it poorly. Charlie Kirk promoted violence, and that shouldn’t be ignored. He didn’t deserve to die for that at all. And Dowd didn’t say that, but just said there was a world of violence and division that existed in the U.S. today – which, I think, no one would deny, with 45,000 people getting shot every year and more mass shootings than there are days in a year (Minnesota politicians were just shot and killed at their homes only last month) -- which was an environment that Charlie Kirk’s own words regularly showed he was a part of. Words that would make most people’s toes curl. That was the environment we all live in. And then a gun man took it upon himself to murder Kirk.

And MSNBC fired the eloquent, smart, thoughtful Matthew Dowd.

Fired??

I’m sure MSNBC did a knee-jerk reaction knowing that the far-right and Trump would be faux-outraged that MSNBC supposedly would dare allow such words to be spoken. (Never mind all the words Charlie Kirk regularly spoke and tried to enrage others.) And so, “We have to fire him to show how tough we are.”

Because that’s the environment we live in.

It’s a cowardly and shameful action. Because Mathew Dowd is excellent. And didn't phrase something reasonably correct as well as he should have. For which he apologized. And firing him sets a horrible precedent. Which I hope isn’t repeated.