Are “soft values” — “sensitivity, subjectivity, tolerance, self-esteem, a therapy-based view of behavior, relativism, and nonjudgmentalism, all replacing the ‘hard’ values of individual responsibility, objectivity, self-control, patriotism, strong social expectations, and commitment to moral judgments” — adequate to the job of fighting terrorism? John Leo ponders:

If you think soft values are adequate for the job, the behavior of Johnelle Bryant should set off bells. Bryant, a Department of Agriculture official, told ABC that Mohamed Atta had visited her Florida office seeking a government loan for what turned out to be the attack on the World Trade Center.

If Atta had said clearly that he wanted to kill lots of Americans at taxpayer expense, Bryant might have caught on. Instead, he gave a few clues that left her unruffled: He threatened to cut her throat; he said he wanted to fly a crop-duster; he praised Osama bin Laden; he talked about the destruction of prominent landmarks and asked about security around them. The problem wasn’t simply that Bryant was a bonehead. She also was a gusher of multicultural understanding and nonjudgmental soft values. She very much wanted to ‘help him make his relocation into our country as easy for him as I could,’ she said. As JWR’s Mark Steyn wrote in Canada’s National Post, she was in a ‘sensitivity coma.’

Consider, too, reports that soft values are a factor in dealing with Taliban prisoners at Guant