The day before he was terribly murdered, Charlie Kirk sent me a direct message about X.
He and I had publicly spared about killing a Ukrainian refugee and their relationship with race.
He said that the horrible murder of a white woman was only motivated by anti-white hatred by a black man. I criticized those comments about CNN as unfounded. He went on TV and denounced my conviction. Then he unleashed a tweets fire brigade and challenged my argument.
Kirk's pushback led to an online flood of racist death threats against me, as I rarely saw.
Things were serious about the rails.
Then – in the middle of all this – Charlie Kirk put his hand out.
Charlie Kirk's surprising message
He invited me to come to his show to talk to him. He wrote:
“Hey, van, I mean it, I would like to have you in my show to have a respectful conversation about crime and race. I would be a gentleman as I know you would be. We can disagree about the pleasant issues.”
A direct message from conservative activist Charlie Kirk to Van Jones, a day before Kirk was shot and killed during a striking event. – Van Jones
Unfortunately, before I could even respond, Charlie Kirk was killed – apparently killed for the words he spoke, although the exact motives of the murderer are still being investigated.
I have had problems with many of those words – sometimes strong – but never his right to speak. Never his right to express those views and then go home to his family. That is a holy American value.
Condemning murder is not difficult
So it was not difficult for me to condemn his murder – immediately, without qualification and unconditional conditions.
That afternoon I tweeted:
“Today's attack on Charlie Kirk is absolutely horrible and heartbreaking. He fought with words, no weapons.
Political murder is wrong, point out. I was born in 1968 – in a country that is torn apart by riots and murders. I don't want to go back to that. None of us should.
In fact: Kirk's murder gives us every reason to return to the table for dialogue. There is an increasing tide of political violence that has wiped out all his life and many others, both from the left and right.
Violence such as this should force people in both parties to reject the heat, to find a common basis and look for off-disasters of the Vitriol-as Kirk did with me the day before he died.
Charlie Kirk opposed censorship and 'civil war'
But instead the opposite happens. People use his horrible murder to ask for more violence – justify murder or even call it a civil war! Government officials use its murder as an excuse for censoring and silence -abnormal opinions.
Hold on! Wait a minute!
That is not the way Charlie Kirk handled opinion difference. Not at all.
When our public dispute started to go aside, what was Kirk's answer?
He insisted on more conversation, no longer silent or censorship.
He insisted on more politeness, no longer striving or poison.
Whatever you think of Kirk's inheritance, that simple fact is commendable – and it is something that everyone has to maintain and try to replicate.
If you are on the right, do not give up open debate and dialogue. Charlie didn't do it. I'll not do it. And I make the same plea for people on the left.
Don't get in the failure in violence
And whatever side you are, don't let yourself be flown in to believe that political violence is the way. Let's really be: most people who call online for murder and Mayhem couldn't win a fight with a house fly. They pretend to be badasses that are ready to storm the barricades.
Most are not.
And for what it is worth: you may think we hate each other on TV and online. But not for the most part. We are debating hard. We try to win elections. Along the way we sometimes piss each other off.
But we don't want any damage to each other. We no longer want bloodshed in our country. We no longer want funerals in America. Most experts and influencers try not to induce a kind of civil war. We just do our work and fulfill our calls, as good as we can. That's all.
If things get out of hand, someone usually calls someone. We try to talk. We are looking for repair. Because we all just want to be able to say ourselves and come home with our children. That's it.
Please – everyone – consider following a similar approach to your own place and space. Let's get rid of this scary path that we follow. Let's decide – in the words of Charlie Kirk – to “disagree about the pleasors.”
The right way to fight
Despite all our differences, neither Charlie nor I have ever wanted to see the other person harmed or silenced.
On the contrary: I wanted to beat Charlie Kirk intellectually by beating him. I wanted to see that progressives defeat him politically and to organize him.
Neither of the tasks would have been easy. Charlie Kirk was one of the best debaters and organizers of our age. But that would have been the right way for us to handle our differences.
That was what was on the table when he sent me a message on Tuesday from last week.
Unfortunately, the bullet of a coward robbed conservatives of an emerging talent, progressives from a worthy opponent and a family of a loving father.
Americans must make a choice in the aftermath of that murder.
We can choose to go the path of more violence, more indignation and more censorship – if we want.
But if we opt for censorship and civil war, we cannot blame that choice for Charlie Kirk!
From his last 24 hours I have the proof that he wanted to do a completely different way.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account on CNN.com
