Dennis Prager

Think A Second Time

(Commentary magazine)

Dennis Prager is the host of a leading radio talk show that originates in California. He also publishes Ultimate Issues, a quarterly journal; teaches courses in the Bible; and is the co-author (with Joseph Telushkin) of a popular introductory text, Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism. In this collection of 43 pensees, many drawn from longer essays in Ultimate Issues, Prager addresses the great questions of the day-among them race relations, capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, and religious extremism. He not only tells us what he thinks about them, but buttresses his thoughts with arguments and examples drawn from the great traditions of moral philosophy, Judaism in particular.

He is not one to mince words. Capital punishment, he argues, is a moral imperative, being both just and compassionate. Single women should not bear children--it is selfish to conceive a child without a father. Contrary to current practice, social workers should encourage rather than discourage interracial adoption. An unmoderated pacifism is immoral, for it involves acquiescence in evil. Whatever the revisers of biblical language may say, we must go on depicting God as a father; young men, the primary perpetrators of criminal behavior, need to be reminded of the father's civilizing role. These and other positions grow out of Prager's belief that moral values emanate from the one God, Whose central demand is that people act decently toward one another. A religiously observant Jew, he identifies the primary mandate of his faith as ethical monotheism "the only `ism' I care about" . To illustrate what he means by this, he cites the response of Hillel, the great rabbi of the talmudic era, to the pagan who asked to be taught all of Judaism while standing on one leg: "What is hateful to you, do not do unto others; the rest is commentary."

One central lesson Prager derives from this golden rule is that actions and their results, particularly as they affect others, are much more important than personal feelings, or even motives. Perhaps his strongest indictment of contemporary American society is that we tend to embrace abstract notions like love, compassion, and self-esteem while neglecting self-discipline and ethical behavior. Worse, we rush to espouse any philosophy that will exempt us from moral responsibility for our own actions. The great "Lie of the Left," Prager writes, is the claim that people "do bad things because of outside forces, especially economic ones"--in an extreme formulation, that "poverty causes crime." This, in his judgment, is exactly backward: rich or poor, people do bad things because they have bad values, and lack self-control.

When they do bad things, moreover, they should be punished. To Prager, one's attitude toward punishment in general, and toward the death penalty for murder in particular, offers a Rorschach test of one's commitment to ethical monotheism. He rehearses the various arguments against capital punishment--innocent people may be executed; it does not accomplish anything because the victims cannot be brought back to life; it is a form of state murder, mere societal revenge; blacks are affected by it disproportionately; other societies manage nicely without it--and answers them one by one.

First, he contends, "far more innocent people will be murdered if there is no death penalty than if there is." Next, the death penalty does have deterrent value, even if that value is hard to measure; and while it is true that the victims cannot be revived, executing the guilty goes far toward alleviating the anguish of their loved ones. Quoting William F. Buckley, Jr., Prager observes that if capital punishment is state murder, imprisonment, by the same logic, is state kidnaping; besides, society should take just "revenge" against those who flout its most basic mandate. Black murderers, as it happens, are not executed in disproportionate numbers, as definitive studies have lately shown. Finally, Western societies that do without capital punishment should count themselves lucky--perhaps they can afford the luxury; America, alas, cannot.

In case there is any doubt about where all this puts Prager politically, he spells it out by aligning himself in this book with what he calls classical liberalism. This tradition, he asserts, is a complement to the dictates of ethical monotheism. But he distinguishes sharply between classical liberalism and the contemporary variety, whose doctrines and policies he deems "in large part" responsible for the problems of widespread welfare dependency, the increase in out-of-wedlock births, the erosion of public-school standards, and the Balkanization of society along racial and ethnic lines.

Since the late 1960's, Prager writes mordantly, "liberalism has become identified with positions that were always regarded as Left or even radical, but not liberal, and sometimes not even moral." Nowhere is this discrepancy more salient than with regard to race:

The liberalism I learned held that the skin color of a person is no more important than his or her eye color; that the American ideal is integration, and that liberals must oppose segregation, yet today liberalism supports racial quotas, race-norming (grading an exam differently for members of different races), and segregating students in college dorms by race and ethnicity.

In holding that racial identity matters more than individual behavior- -color more than character--today's liberalism is the very antithesis of ethical monotheism. Indeed, the racial philosophy of the contemporary Left, Prager notes, ironically echoes what was once the great "Lie of the Right": the one which "enabled the Nazis to view `Aryans,' no matter what their behavior, as inherently superior, and Jews, no matter what their behavior, as innately 'subhuman.'

The disastrous turn taken by contemporary liberalism is especially painful to Prager as a practicing Jew, and as one whose central philosophy grows out of Judaism itself. The United States, he asserts, is "facing a struggle for its soul" between, broadly speaking, the values of a secular-liberalism and the values of a religion-based or religion- tinged conservatism. In that struggle, sadly, American Jews have generally allied themselves not with the moral imperatives of traditional Judaism but with the dominant secular-liberal culture. As one egregious example, Prager mentions the growing tendency in some denominations to condone or even to sanctify homosexual marriage, in flagrant contravention of Jewish religious law and teaching. But there are many other areas as well in which American Jews, by turning their backs on their own tradition, have also "too often taken positions that hurt America."

Think a Second Time is a consistently engaging book. This is not to say that Prager's analysis is immune to criticism. He takes no account, for example, of ethical systems that are not monotheistic; yet millions of Buddhists, Hindus, and Confucians live by moral codes that are presumably compatible both with the dictates of their (multiple) divinities and with Prager's notions of human decency. Nor does he grapple sufficiently with the occasional tensions between monotheistic theologies and the ethics he espouses. After all, in ordering a death sentence for Salman Rushdie, the Ayatollah Khomeini was only carrying out the Quranic command to take the life of the blasphemer; to dismiss Khomeini with the observation that "like all religions. . . . Islam contains xenophobic elements and doctrines that are incompatible with ethical monotheism" is rather to beg the question than to answer it. Finally, the book necessarily suffers the defects of its virtues: while the short-essay form allows Prager to be pungent and succinct, it does not encourage the sorts of discriminations from which discussion of these topics could sometimes benefit.

Notwithstanding these minor quibbles, Think a Second Time is a success. Prager not only writes fluently, he brings a cogent mind and a humane sensibility to bear on whatever he surveys. Most importantly, he has eminently satisfied the goal he set for himself in writing this book: to make his readers rethink their fundamental positions on the most profound issues our society now faces.

Jay P. Lefkowitz, whose articles and reviews have appeared in Commentary and elsewhere, practices law in Washington, D.C.

A SOCIAL CRITIC WHO DELIGHTS IN RAISING MORAL ISSUES

( St. Louis Post-Dispatch )

By Mona Charen

Nothing is low-key about Dennis Prager. His life - of radio disputation, lectures about God and morality, books, travel and television - is lived in italics. Every social controversy, from multiculturalism to single parenting, from religiously inspired murder to pacifism, is illuminated through the unique Prager lens. He is given often to outrage and sometimes to disgust - at the Los Angeles riots and the liberal reaction thereto, for example - but never to ennui or cynicism.

Millions of Californians know him as the talk-radio host who makes a daily case for God-based morality - or what he prefers to call " ethical monotheism." Jewish groups know him as the lecturer who has brought countless secular Jews back to an appreciation of their ancient faith.

In his latest book, "Think a Second Time," Prager recounts the experiences that led him to his conviction that a lack of morality (or a flawed morality) undergirds much of modern thinking. He was seated on an airplane next to a woman who had ordered a vegetarian meal. Since Prager had also requested a special meal (kosher), and since he believes that the Jewish dietary laws are in part a demand upon Jews that they treat animals with compassion, he struck up a conversation with the lady about her reasons for being a vegetarian.

She was a vegetarian, she explained, "because we have no right to kill animals. Who are we to claim that we are more valuable than animals?"

Prager reeled. "I can certainly understand your opposition to killing animals, but you can't really mean what you said about people not being more valuable than animals. After all, if a person and an animal were both drowning, which would you save first?"

"I don't know," she replied.

In countless lectures to college students since then, Prager has highlighted his audiences' moral immaturity by posing a slightly tougher question: "If your dog and a stranger were both drowning, which would you save first?" Many of his listeners fail to understand why this should not be a difficult choice.

The book offers small treats, like Prager's vigorous defense of hypocrisy and strip shows (I won't give it away), a nuanced discussion of the difference between sin and unholiness in matters sexual, and a lament about adult children who decide never again to speak to their aging parents.

He offers a glossary of political terms that is dead-on: "Conservative: a person with selfish motives. Liberal: a person with altruistic motives. Ultra-conservative: a person who is too conservative. Ultra-liberal: term not used; one presumably cannot be too liberal."

He also takes on the fiercest problems in religious and moral thought - the problem of evil, belief in God after the Holocaust - with passion, originality and robust honesty. Though a believer in God, for example, he admits to finding prayer difficult.

Prager is at his coruscating best, though, in applying his moral compass to events like the Los Angeles riots. A former liberal, Prager unambiguously pins blame for the riots on liberalism itself. He quotes an NBC TV reporter who described one scene of rioting this way: "I see five black gentlemen throwing stones at cars."

"Can anyone imagine," Prager asks, "a reporter saying, `I see five white gentlemen throwing stones at cars'? Liberalism has so stifled moral honesty in relation to blacks that a reporter instinctively feels it necessary to call black thugs `gentlemen.' "

Prager has no patience with liberal calls to "understand black rage" in the wake of the Rodney King verdict. Everyone feels rage, he argues, "but moral people control their rage, and immoral people don't."

Liberals have done more than excuse black rage, Prager writes, they have fomented and encouraged it, with unfounded accusations of racism. In 1960, liberals were basically positive about their country, Prager laments. By 1995, they have come to despise it.

This is an opinionated man and an opinionated book. But attacks on liberalism notwithstanding, it doesn't fit neatly into any political category. It is guaranteed to do only two things: surprise you and make you think a second time.

By Ben Combee

I just finished reading the recent book Think a Second Time by Dennis Prager. The author's name may not be familiar to you. I first encountered him when he hosted a daily talk show that aired at 1:30 in the morning here in north Georgia. I saw a few episodes when I was home for break and was hooked. His show had a similar format to many others; he would give a monologue and have a panel of guests.

However, there was a major difference in content. While many of the shows would focus on lurid pop culture or mindless political infighting, his show was an involving dialogue on important issues of ethics and basic issues. Topics included "are people born good?" and "why are so many Americans lonely?"; the shallow nature of the mass media rarely allows for such deep discussion.

I didn't know much else about Mr. Prager until I picked up his book, found in the discounted book store at the local outlet mall. In addition to his brief career as a television personality, he also is a noted scholar of Judaism, a radio host, and an expert of international affairs. The collection of essays in this book also qualify him, in my opinion, as a much needed moralist for our society.

His preface to the book introduces him as a passionate moderate. Much of the first half of the book is a critique of modern Liberalism. He examines the civil rights movement and wonders why it seems to espouse a black-against-white racism while black-on-black suffering continues unabashed in Africa; for feminism, he argues that the film _Thelma and Louise_ provides an important commentary on the status of women in society, but a similarly clarifying work about the suffering of men under women is needed. His breakdown of the evil of pacifism is timely with its bifurcation of violence into that which is just and that which is unjust.

Justice, good, evil, and values are central concepts of Prager's view.

He consistently stresses that a society without shared values that stress the importance of being good is a society that is doomed.

Likewise, the elevation of compassion over justice devalues that which is good. Early in the book, he asks a question: which is most important, to be smart, successful, happy, or good? He believes strongly that the correct answer is to be good, and that to good requires an absolute moral standard.

The second half of the book is an elaboration on that standard. He pulls from his own Jewish traditions and from the teachings of Christianity and Islam to develop a concept of ethical monotheism.

Ethical because religious belief without an overwhelming interest in doing good leads to much evil, and monotheism because only by having one standard of morality can good be defined and attained. Prager does not feel that all religions are one; he relishes his own tradition, but also delights in the Christian celebration of Christmas. He does think that intolerance leads to evil and that each of the major monotheistic faiths can learn much from the others.

Dogma and ritual are much less important to Prager then the teaching of values, anchored in a faith in something greater than creation.

Without that faith, he argues, ethics are absurd because they exist ina void.

This book has greatly influenced my thoughts on many topics. As its title suggests, it has caused me to think a second time. I'm not in total agreement with him, but I find his clarity helpful in analyzing what stands I will take. If you are interested in the future of our culture and want to have a better feel for what should be done to put us on the right track, then I would highly recommend Prager's book as a primer on the importance of morality.

By Mike Maza

DALLAS MORNING NEWS

"Happiness Is a Serious Problem" by Dennis Prager (Regan hardcover, $23).

Happiness is not just a serious problem to Prager. It's a moral one. We owe it to ourselves, our partners, our society, our creator, to make ourselves happy, he says. And not by blissing out or steamrolling everything between us and our dreams, but through constant applications of willpower.

Prager made the ultimate millennial career switch (theologian to Los Angeles talk show host) and is said to be on the cusp of national syndication. In print, he tempers a no-excuses attitude reminiscent of Dr. Laura Schlessinger with a grandfatherly acceptance of how easy it is for humans to make themselves unhappy and how hard it can be to see things differently.

A sample: "One of human nature's most effective ways of sabotaging happiness is to look at a beautiful scene and fixate on whatever is flawed or missing, no matter how small. … Imagine looking up at a tiled ceiling from which one tile is missing -- you will most likely concentrate on that missing tile. In fact, the more beautiful the ceiling, the more you are likely to concentrate on the missing tile and permit it to affect your enjoyment of the rest of the ceiling.

"Ceilings can be perfect but life cannot. In life there will always be tiles missing -- and even when there aren't, we can always imagine a more perfect life and therefore imagine that something is missing. … Unless we teach ourselves to concentrate on what we do have, we will end up obsessing over missing tiles and allow them to become insurmountable obstacles to happiness."