Dennis Prager argues that private speech, not private actions, reveals character, citing Trump's Access Hollywood tape. A critic counters that this creates a moral loophole: excusing murder or rape if done silently would be absurd. The debate exposes tensions in how we judge public figures.
Uh, let's see here. Uh, here, okay, listen carefully. This clip is part of a longer video. It's from my fireside chat, which he starts— that he is me, Dennis Prager— by talking about his deep desire for moral clarity, and then starts immediately to talk about Trump's Access Hollywood tape. He then goes into a lengthy discussion of why private talk is not indicative of character. The position he presents is made up of some pretty impressive rationalizations, and he creates a remarkable moral loophole, especially for someone with a self-described obsession with moral clarity. Now listen to the next sentence. Instead of character being what you do when no one is watching, It is now only what you do when people are watching. So I'm sorry to say this, either the man is dishonest or not bright. And I, I don't mean to insult him. Obviously it's insulting, but it's not my intent. What I'm saying is a fact. He's either not bright or he's dishonest. It's possible he's both. Notice how he changed. What I said to his saying. Instead of character being what you do, he changed say to do. They all did that, by the way, all the attacks on me. And I make clear, it's not what you do in private, it's what you say in private that does not tell me about your character. Amazing, huh? I don't know if it's because people are not educated in logical thought, although this is— I don't know why this even necessitates education in logical thought. If I make a distinction, as everybody in the world does, between saying and doing, then Why would you then change it to "do" from "say"? Would I ever say that what you do in private— if you murder in private, it doesn't tell me about your character? If you rape in private, it doesn't tell me about your character? If you counterfeit dollar bills, $100 bills in private— I mean, the idea is so absurd. This is what goes for thought on the left, because it's not thought through, remember, it's all emoted. And I see it every day, every single day I see this sort of stuff. Like I brought to your attention yesterday, the New York Times headline about the president said there were no casualties in the Iranian attack on our base in Iraq, but it turns out that there were X number of men with concussions. But in the second paragraph of the article, it says, at the time the president said this, no concussions or injuries were reported. So the whole headline was deceitful. Doesn't matter. So, Hundreds of commenters, of New York Times readers, said, "You see, the president's a liar." Not the Times, the president.
Life, Legacy, and a Dangerous Mission in the Soviet Union | Sunday Fireside Chat
