Dennis Prager calls for “American values first”

Dennis Prager opens by criticizing a remark comedian Dave Chappelle reportedly made about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Prager sees the remark as an example of cultural decline and says he cannot imagine expressing satisfaction at the killing of a political opponent.

Prager says he watched a recording but is unsure how strongly the audience reacted. Co-host Marissa says some people laughed and applauded; she argues that the reaction does not represent the whole country. Both criticize the response they describe.

Prager then turns to questions he hears about the future of MAGA, the Republican Party and conservatism. He argues that generations of young Americans have not been taught enough about what he considers American values.

He says many conservatives struggle to define conservatism and points to his book Still the Best Hope. His own account centers on what he calls the “American Trinity”: liberty, “In God We Trust” and E pluribus unum, or “out of many, one.”

Prager proposes saying “American values first” instead of “America first.” In his view, the country is defined by its values, and a nationalist slogan without them would not explain what Americans are defending.

He begins with liberty, especially freedom of speech. He argues that it depends on limited government and checks and balances because concentrated power can be abused. His account treats limits on government as a response to the dangers he sees in human nature.

Prager criticizes socialism and what he characterizes as a preference for collective rather than individual ownership. He regards growth in government power as a threat to liberty. These are his political judgments about the relationship between government, property and freedom.

He links liberty to religious belief, citing the Liberty Bell’s inscription from Leviticus about proclaiming liberty throughout the land. He argues that rights must rest on a creator rather than human authorities if they are to be secure.

For E pluribus unum, Prager emphasizes assimilation into a shared American identity. He recalls the language of a “melting pot” and argues that common values, rather than a single ethnicity or race, are what hold the country together.

Returning to his initial political question, Prager says MAGA and conservatism can endure if they emphasize these values. Without them, he argues, a slogan may not survive electoral defeat.

He says his accident deepened his reflection on values. He then raises the schedule for the trial of the man accused of killing Kirk, saying that a June 2028 start is painfully far away and criticizing the delay.

Prager briefly recalls philosopher Robert Nozick’s discussion of boredom and suggests that boredom deserves attention when thinking about the origins of evil. He says he will return to that argument another time.

Marissa asks what people concerned about the country can actually do. Prager’s answer is to learn the values he has described and pass them on to children, friends and their families. He believes the phrase “American values first” would invite people to explain a value system instead of only a national preference.

A viewer asks for an argument that some moral judgments are right or wrong regardless of time, place or majority opinion. Prager compares morality with mathematics: in his view, if moral judgments were merely subjective, morality would have no objective existence.

Prager connects that claim to his religious belief. He argues that without God, good and evil would be matters of opinion, and refers listeners to his book on who defines them. His answer is a theological and philosophical position about the basis of morality.

Another viewer asks how the Hebrew Bible portrays women. Prager argues that women in the Torah are often strong and important to the story, citing Rebecca and Pharaoh’s daughter, who saves Moses. He also interprets the creation of woman last as a sign of distinction.

Prager distinguishes the Torah, which he considers divine, from later rabbis, whom he regards as human and shaped in part by their time. He says some rabbinic statements show less regard for women than he finds in the Torah.

Marissa offers a reflection on women, boundaries and social roles, and criticizes feminism. Prager responds that both men and women should be strong. They present these views as their interpretation of family and society.

A final viewer asks why Isaac appears less prominent than Abraham and Jacob. Prager agrees that Isaac has a different role but credits him with preserving the monotheistic mission and with his part in the story of Abraham’s test.

Asked what readers should learn from Isaac, Prager emphasizes continuity. He compares Isaac to an ordinary person who carries a value system forward rather than founding it. Marissa adds that someone can play a secondary role and still matter.