To the Editor:
I ENJOYED Meir Y. Soloveichik’s article on David (“David, We Hardly Knew Ye,” July/August). One point of clarification: The author seems to use the words “penitent” or “penitence” as being synonymous with repentance. Penitence, however, implies making up for one’s sins by some act of contrition, while repentance implies a changed heart. David’s psalms suggested that rather than only doing penance, David actually repented, and that’s what sets him apart. I am not Jewish, but it seems to me that more than most publications, Commentary takes God’s existence seriously or, at the very least, accepts it as a possibility. For believers, that is refreshing.
James Helberg
Midlothian, Virginia

RABBI SOLOVEICHIK’S column was a pleasure to read because he deepened our knowledge of a central biblical figure. I wonder, however, what it was about Dennis Prager’s analysis that he was trying to critique. All that Prager said was that God sometimes uses flawed individuals to achieve great good. Prager cited two biblical examples: King David, who sent an innocent man to his death because David had committed adultery with his wife, and the prostitute Rahab, who was instrumental in the Jewish conquest of Canaan. Quite obviously, in making this point, Prager was neither arguing that President Trump is “comparable” to King David any more than he was arguing that Trump is “comparable” to the prostitute Rahab. In contending that Prager’s point is somehow invalid because King David, unlike Trump, was notable for his capacity for sincere repentance, Rabbi Soloveichik succeeds in knocking down a straw man. Indeed, he concedes Prager’s simple point: “One can make the case for supporting politicians who have significant moral flaws.” As Prager asks, who is more deserving of our support, a serial adulterer who supports Israel (President Kennedy) or a faithful family man who considers Israel an “apartheid state” (Jimmy Carter)? Prager’s point was made in service of a larger one.

Long before Donald Trump became the Republican nominee, Prager wrote that Trump was unfit to be president. Once Trump became the nominee, Prager understood that the choice was between Trump and the candidate supported by leftism. Since Prager believes leftism is intent on destroying the country, and has already made significant progress in doing so, he chose to think rationally, rather than emotionally, in supporting Trump over Clinton. If Prager is right, then perhaps joining the mainstream media in focusing on Trump’s childish tweets is a mistake. Let’s hope that one day these important questions raised by Prager will receive the discussion they deserve in the pages of Commentary. 
Daniel J. Friedman
Los Angeles, California