In this monologue, Dennis Prager reacts to a New York Times op‑ed by Bret Stephens that praises many of Donald Trump’s policies while condemning the former president personally. Prager argues that the real question is not whether Trump is a dictator, but whether he threatens the political establishment. He critiques the repeated claims that Trump’s election denialism and the January 6 Capitol attack constitute an existential danger to democracy, noting that similar denialism has occurred among Democrats and that the insurrection was a failed “temper‑tantrum.” Prager highlights Trump’s economic record—low unemployment, wage growth, stock market gains, and low inflation (aside from pandemic‑related distortions)—as evidence that many voters view his presidency positively. He points out that Trump’s judicial appointments limited his own legal maneuvers, and that Democratic judges and state officials now employ novel legal theories to keep him off ballots, which he frames as a greater threat to democratic norms. Throughout, Prager emphasizes that the 2024 election will be decided less by abstract democratic concerns and more by which candidate delivers tangible benefits to ordinary Americans, contrasting elite‑focused policies of the Biden administration with Trump’s appeal to “builders, manufacturers, and energy producers.” The commentary also touches on cultural issues, media bias, and foreign‑policy considerations, ultimately urging listeners to read Stephens’ article critically and to assess Trump’s impact beyond partisan narratives.
Chapters
You owe it to yourself and you owe it to everyone in your life to send this article, to read it, read it carefully, read it twice. Almost every line is brilliant. It is written by Bret Stephens of the New York Times, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, formerly of the Jerusalem Post. Dennis Prager. He is the one remaining conservative, but he is a Trump-hating conservative. But he has done the impossible, almost. He has explained Trump's appeal and said calling him a racist and all these other things and lying about him isn't going to help. Trump and his supporters called all this out, talking about how much our institutions have betrayed us. And he is— Bret Stephens is in agreement with virtually everything that Donald Trump stands for. That's the irony. But he hates the man. Like I care if I like the person. Brett Stephens is an honorable, good man, and I'm happy he's writing. So this is not meant as a personal attack. It's not at all meant as such. But there is a narcissism to the idea, Trump is right, but I hate the man. Who gives a damn what you think about the man? Do you know how little my whole life I have concerned myself with, do I like the politician or the leader? This is such a '60s thing. Are you likable? Yes, it's important in, in certain arenas of life, like to your friends. You should be likable to your friends. Do you ask if your surgeon is likable? Then why do you ask it about your president? A few readers might nod their heads in partial agreement. Then they'll ask, what about the election denialism? What about January 6th? What about the threat Trump poses to the very foundations of our democracy? All disqualifying in my view. That is my Bret Stephens view. But it's also important to stretch one's mind a little. By the way, I just want to say, I don't fully believe Bret on this. Not that he's lying, but I think he's fooling himself. He hated Trump before January 6th. Oh yeah. Yeah, I mean, so what is it? January 6th has nothing to do with it. But it's also important to stretch one's mind a little and try to understand why so many voters are unimpressed about the quote, end of democracy argument. For one thing, haven't they heard it before? And with the same apocalyptic intensity? In 2016, Trump was frequently compared to Benito Mussolini and other dictators, including by me. And he even has a link. That's one of the great lines in this piece. The comparison might have proved more persuasive if Trump's presidency had been replete with jailed and assassinated political opponents, rigged or canceled elections, a muzzled or captured press, and Trump still holding office today rather than running to get his old job back. The election denialism is surely ugly, but it isn't quite unique. Prominent Democrats also denied the legitimacy of George W. Bush's two elections, the second one no less than the first. Yeah, right, that doesn't count. Election denialism. Anyway, he points out something I say almost every day, or every time I talk about Trump. And, and the New York Times' lies about his being a threat to democracy and a dictator. He was president 4 years. Where were his, where were his dictatorial trends, policies then? Many rank-and-file Republicans regard the January 6th assault on the Capitol as a disgrace and the lowest point of Trump's presidency. But they also believe that it wasn't so much an insurrection as it was an ugly temper tantrum by Trump and his most rabid supporters, which never had a chance of succeeding. One reason for that is the judges Trump appointed to the federal bench and the Supreme Court rebuffed his legal efforts, and he had no choice but to accept the rulings. An American version of Vladimir Putin? He simply is not. That's why warnings from Biden and others about the risk Trump poses to democracy are likely to fall flat even with many moderate voters. If there's any serious threat to democracy, doesn't it also come from Democratic judges and state officials? Listen to this. This is gutsy stuff. If there's any serious threat to democracy, Doesn't it also come from Democratic judges and state officials who are using never-before-used legal theories, which even liberal law professors like Harvard's Lawrence Lessig regard as dangerous and absurd, to try to kick Trump's name off ballots in Maine and Colorado? Yes, that might be the Democrats. Brett Stephens in the New York Times is writing, the Democrats, including all his colleagues at the New York Times, maybe they are the greater threat to democracy. When liberal partisans try to suppress democracy in the name of saving democracy, they aren't helping their cause politically or legally. They are merely confirming the worst stereotypes about their own hypocrisy. As it is, the 2024 election will not hinge on questions of democracy but of delivery. Which candidate will do more for voters? That will turn on perceptions of which candidate did more for voters when they were president. When they were president. How's that? Yeah, who did more for you, Biden or Trump? Who did more for you, fellow Americans? I know who did more for the elites. For the fanatics of the feminist movement, of the LGBT movement, of the environmentalist movement, but who did more for you? Biden supporters are convinced that the president has a good story to tell, but they also think that Trump has no story at all, only a pack of self-aggrandizing lies That's liberal self-delusion. The only problem with this article is if you highlight some sentences for your kid who thinks you're a racist for supporting Donald Trump, you'll be highlighting the whole article. No, I'm serious, it's a problem. Excluding the pandemic, a once-in-a-century event that would have knocked almost any sitting president sideways, Americans have reasons to remember the Trump years as good ones. For that line alone. OMG. Whoa. Americans have good reasons— have reasons to remember the Trump years as good ones. That was printed in the New York Times. Wow. And good in a way that completely defied expert predictions of doom. Wages outpaced inflation, something they have just begun to do under Biden. That's only because of the phony inflation numbers. Stocks boomed. Unemployment fell to 50-year lows. Inflation and interest rates were low. He appealed to Americans who operated in the economy of things—builders, manufacturers, energy producers, food services, and the like—rather than in the economy of words—another brilliant line—lawyers, academics, journalists, civil servants. And he shared the law and order instincts of normal Americans, including respect for the police, something the left seemed to care about on January 6th. But was notably less concerned about during the months of rioting, violence, and semi-anarchy that followed George Floyd's murder. George Floyd was not murdered, and I expect one day Bret Stephens will write about that. He might have been killed, but he wasn't murdered. If you don't know the difference, read my commentary on the Ten Commandments in my Rational Bible. As for foreign policy, it's worth asking— well, I'll get to that in a moment. The piece is up at DennisPrager.com.
