Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

The Princess and the Frog tops the charts.

Jeff Jacoby on Tiger Woods and America’s obsession with race.

New York Times science reporter Nicholas Wade contends in his new book The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and How It Endures that human beings are by their very nature inclined to believe in something greater than themselves, something that will bring about an improvement in their current conditions. This inclination acts as a psychological defense mechanism, a safeguard against extreme despair.

The Faith Instinct has been published at an ideal time, a time when sociopolitical circumstances in the United States require a certain amount of faith—blind or otherwise—that things will get better.

Faith comes in handy when facts don’t. Facts would naturally lead one to conclude that America may never be free from its heavy debt, may never be as economically vibrant as it once was, may in fact lose its superpower status at some point and become just another nation. Only faith—blind or otherwise—can lead us to the reassurance that things will not be as bad as they seem.

Viewed from a purely objective status, America is going downhill—its citizens becoming more ignorant and entertainment-obsessed, its politicians (from both parties) becoming more corrupt, its institutions becoming more untrustworthy, its future becoming more grim. You could not blame a parent who believes his child’s quality of life will be worse than his or her own.

Once faith is introduced, the dynamic changes. Wade notes that the Puritans held fast to the view that America was a nation uniquely blessed by God, and that this belief has been maintained by Americans of faith throughout the centuries. If one believes that God has placed special protection upon America, one will be disinclined to believe that God will remove such protection and allow America to spin into chaos. (This presupposes, of course, that one is not a deist, or a Pat Robertson-style religious pessimist.)

Strong faith is required for conservatives who saw their movement tremble in the 2000s. The demographic and cultural trends suggest decades of Democratic dominion in America, and the wholesale collapse of the once-vibrant right. Conservative figures such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are considered icons by those who share their views, but the rest of the country doesn’t seem to share the same love, to put it mildly.

Conservatives must hope that more and more Americans become disillusioned by President Obama, and that this disillusionment becomes so deep that the electorate forgets about its contempt for George W. Bush. The combination of growing anti-Obama sentiment and the emergence of a more coherent conservative message will result in future political victories for the right. Conservatives have to believe that these two political necessities will become reality.

Faith is not limited to conservatives; progressives also believe that things will ultimately turn out for their benefit. Progressive advocates of same-sex marriage, for example, must surely have faith that their recent political defeats are just a late-2000s backlash, and that over time enough Americans will come to the conclusion that gay and lesbian couples deserve to have their partnerships recognized by government. It would be quite natural to be disillusioned in light of these defeats, and the polling data indicating the problems many Americans still have with the concept of same-sex marriage; however, faith in the future compels these progressives to pay attention to data suggesting that younger Americans are welcoming of same-sex marital rights. At some point, the older Americans who strongly oppose the idea won’t be around, and their children and grandchildren will express equally strong support for the concept.

Faith—perhaps not necessarily in God, but faith in something—compels all of us. It allows us to look forward to tonight, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year. It allows us to work as hard as possible to achieve our political goals, because we have confidence that these goals will be achieved.

Without such faith in a better day on the horizon, we would not have had a civil rights movement or a women’s suffrage movement. Without such faith, neither Ronald Reagan nor Barack Obama would have thrown their hats into the Presidential ring. Without such faith, this very country would not have been founded.

No matter where we are on the economic or political spectrum, we all have to believe in something. There is, indeed, a faith instinct—and that instinct is necessary for our survival.

David Frum on why America still needs neoconservatism.

Dear Elin Nordegren,

Sorry to hear about the recent bad news involving your marriage. I am horrified by your husband’s history of infidelity, his unwillingness to honor his marital vows, his betrayal of your dignity.

I hope you do the right thing and tell your husband that it’s over and you’re leaving. Take the car, take the kids, and take half. It’s only right.

I just have one request, though:

After your divorce settlement is finalized…can I get your number?

Seriously…whatever your husband did wrong, I can make right.

You deserve a man who will treat you with the respect you’re worthy of. You deserve a man who will remind you each and every day how much he cherishes you. You deserve a man who will treat you right every day and every night.

You need a real man, a true gentleman who will place you on a pedestal, who will buy you nice things because you’re worth it, not out of guilt.

I don’t want your money. It will be a lot, I know, but I don’t want it. I want to love you for you.

As Ryan Leslie put it, you’re a diamond girl. You have a lovely spirit and a pleasant heart. Your beauty proves God’s existence. You look better than all of your husband’s honeys put together.

Why would your husband need anyone on the side when he has—or had—you? You need someone who will truly appreciate you.

This isn’t about money. I’m not asking for a joint checking account. I don’t want you to buy anything for me. I’m not that kind of man.

You need a man who will look at you in the morning and tell you how lovely you are…a man who’ll take you to a fancy restaurant…a man who’ll whisper in your ear while we’re watching one of your favorite DVDs…a man who will show you he cares and travel with you everywhere…

Like J-Lo said, love don’t cost a thing. It’s not about what’s flossy or what’s glossy. It’s about you, as an individual, as a person.

Your husband is going to miss you. Too bad. To your kids, I can be a better father, since it’s clear that their biological didn’t bother.

Cash? Who cares about material things? It’s not about that. I want you to be my one and only love, my shorty, my boo. Let your husband play around with girls—I want to treat you like a woman.

Your soon-to-be-ex-man must have lost his mind. You’re a dimepiece, Elin—and who gives a damn about the millions you’ll be worth? Money can’t buy happiness.

I want to be your man, Elin. I want to treat you the way you should be treated. I want to cook you breakfast in the morning and kiss you on the cheek at night. I think we could be a glamorous couple—think Frank and Ava, Spencer and Katharine, Ellen and Portia.

I want to fly you to Cancun in a private jet…take you to Stockholm for a holiday…spend a night on the town in Manhattan. I want to be with you forever. You can be my rock….we can be the biggest thing since Michelle and Barack.

Forget all the other guys—especially that promiscuous putter who hurt your heart and scarred your soul. I’m here for you, Elin, whenever you need me.

I don’t want any trouble with your spouse-for-now, so just let me know when the courts are done with everything. Once you’re free and clear, just send me your number—and in return, you’ll get the appreciation that club-carrying cheater could never give you.

Your husband can have his honeys…and I swear I don’t even want your money. I can see us together for decades, loving, honoring and cherishing each other. Unlike that rascal you hooked up with, I wouldn’t even look at another woman…because there is no other woman who could compare to you.

While that twisted tiger is adding up his scores, I’ll be reminding you that you’re all that and more. I want to put that glass slipper on your foot, comb your grey hair when we get old…I want to love you with a love that’s bright and bold.

Your husband was just a boy. I’ll be a man.

Just give me that number when the time is right…and I’ll save the last dance for you.

Please be sure to join us tonight on The Notes on Blog Talk Radio at 8:00pm EST. Our guests will be Sushannah Walshe and Scott Conroy, the authors of Sarah from Alaska, and David Horowitz, the author of A Cracking of the Heart.

Newt Gingrich on the President’s problems.

Stanley Fish praises Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue. (A must-read article!)

Patrick Ruffini on the Tea Party movement.

UPDATE: More from Tim Mak.

Is Sarah Palin being set up to fail?

It’s hard to avoid that impression after hearing Palin’s disastrous December 3 appearance on Rusty Humphries’ nationally syndicated radio show. Palin, who delivered above-average performances last month on the Fox News Channel programs hosted by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity but failed to acquit herself well on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, bombed spectacularly on Humphries’ broadcast, incoherently discussing the alleged controversy for President Obama’s place of birth and relying on already-stale catchphrases like “common-sense conservatism” and “faith, family and freedom.” Nothing against common sense, conservatism, faith, family or freedom, but Palin needs to understand that as an unofficial representative of the conservative movement, she cannot afford to come across as unfocused or unintelligent in any media appearance: as veteran radio executive Randall Bloomquist once put it, she needs to be great on a good day and good on a bad day.

Even if Palin remains inconsistent in terms of the quality of her media appearances, it’s hard to envision her fanbase—which also happens to be the base of the Republican Party—turning against her. That fanbase is down on the GOP these days, regarding the party’s leaders as elitists who are scornful of movement conservatives and more tolerant of moderates such as failed 2008 GOP nominee John McCain. If Republican Party leaders recognize that Palin cannot win a general election, but cannot induce the party’s base to consider alternatives, one wonders if those leaders will, in effect, try to teach the base a lesson.

Let’s say the economy recovers in 2011-2012, and President Obama avoids any major foreign-policy screwups heading into his re-election bid. It’s still possible that Obama could be defeated, but only by a candidate who could appeal to folks beyond the GOP’s base, a candidate who is consistently strong in his media appearances, a candidate who never comes across as cognitively compromised. Let’s also say that this candidate is seen by a majority of the GOP base as an untrustworthy moderate, and that this candidate ultimately fails to get past Palin in the 2012 primaries. If Palin becomes the GOP nominee, would it really be too far-fetched to envision the party’s leaders damning her with strong praise, outwardly declaring their firm support while privately expecting, and possibly even hoping, that she fails miserably?

I wouldn’t put it past GOP leaders to effectively go rogue on Palin in 2012, quietly rooting for her failure as a means of sending a message to the GOP base that the most conservative candidate in a Republican Party primary is not necessarily the best candidate. Presumably, the party’s leaders understand why Palin is so strongly admired by the base, but they also understand that the base alone cannot bring about a Presidential victory.

Think back to the 2000 primary. George W. Bush was not the most conservative combatant in that particular battle royale: former Reagan administration officials Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer were the ones with the unimpeachable conservative credentials regarding fiscal, social and defense issues. Of course, Al Gore would have slaughtered either Keyes or Bauer in the general election; by the time election day rolled around, over 50 percent of the country would have been led to believe that the GOP contender was a Bible-banging wingnut.

The base loves Palin because they see her as the real deal—humble in her background, strong in her Christian faith, traditionalist in her worldview. However, the party’s shot-callers surely understand that what endears Palin to her supporters may also repel those who aren’t already on board. GOP bigwigs must be horrified by how inconsistent Palin has been in her recent media appearances, but they also must know that the love the party’s base has for her is just as strong as the love Ronnie had for Nancy.

If Palin comes up short against Obama in 2012, it will effectively slap the rose-colored glasses off the faces of her supporters. It isn’t that odd to imagine GOP leaders secretly hoping that this happens. If Palin is defeated resoundingly, it will force the party’s base to confront the unpleasant reality that the country, while not far-left, is not nearly as resolutely conservative as it was decades ago. The average voter will not vote for someone they see as either a left-wing or a right-wing “extremist.” Yes, Reagan was demonized for years as a right-wing extremist prior to his historic 1980 victory; however, it was only President Carter’s catastrophic failure as Commander-in-Chief that compelled voters to take a second look as Reagan’s vision. If the economy has been reasonably strong in 1980, and if Carter had been able to liberate the hostages during Operation Eagle Claw, would Reagan have won that election?

Palin seems to recognize that she has enemies within the Republican Party. Does she realize how many enemies there might actually be?

The Blind Side tops the charts.

Devon Skinner and Shay Riley on whether America is a center-left or center-right nation.

John Batchelor on Mike Huckabee’s awful week.

George Will on “climategate.”

Howard Fineman on controversial congressman Ron Paul.