Gal Luft, the executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, lambasted oil man T. Boone Pickens in the LA Times today. While Luft may have made some valid points in his critique of Pickens' proposal, his disparaging of Pickens, the man, for his pursuit of profit is discouraging. In a recent interview, a reporter asked Pickens about the allegation that he is trying to pursue a profit, to which he essentially answered "Of course!"

Since when has "profit" become anathema to the American mind and a curse word in the American vocabulary? We have a free-market economy, where success in productivity and innovation is rewarded. The American economy is rooted in the idea that there is no greater incentive for individual and corporate success than a potential profit. If a person becomes a mere cog in a nationalized economic machine, that person performs their function and nothing else. Yet if a person is allowed to run her own machine, maintain it as she sees fit, and even create a new machine, then she will strive do do so.

Boeing and Northrop Grumman are competing to build a new tanker for the Air Force. The winner of that competition will earn a government contract, which will provide better equipment for the defense of our country and a good deal of money for a private corporation. While our government squabbles over how best to punish corporations and regulate our way into a more sound energy policy, they should look to people like T. Boone Pickens for inspiration. He represents old-school American ingenuity. In his proposal, Americans are presented with the mentality that made American great--one which seeks to harness the power of the free-market to create and make a profit.

If the Pickens Plan is not one's cup of tea, new proposals should be put forth by the private sector, with the promise of government awards for success. I would love to see the federal government present Pickens with a monetary reward for his work on the issue and persistence in bringing it before the public. The government should offer free-market incentives and avoid regulation and taxation, lest their incompetence erode the foundations of our economy. Let the competition begin! Gal Luft would have a fit, but the economy that is the pride of America and the beacon for the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

One on my favorite political writers, Jonah Goldberg of National Review, wrote a column today on "Obama, the Postmodernist." As usual, Goldberg offers helpful philosophical insights into that amorphous concept we call "postmodernism." In addition, he does well in showing that Obama in many ways is postmodernism personified. What isn't as usual for Goldberg is that he fell short in two regards: One, our society as a whole can be generally labeled "postmodern" (perhaps even Goldberg himself). Two, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially compared with the worldview that is riding in on its coattails.

As a general point, we imbibe our thought patterns in large part from the philosophical currents of the day. Even in critiquing postmodernism, we are simultaneously immersed and heavily influenced by postmodernism. Postmodernism in is no way an exclusive trait of the Democratic party. Even in rejecting certain implications of postmodernism (i.e. moral relativity), Republicans and other traditionalists do so for reasons influenced by postmodernism. Often, traditionalists embrace and defend moral absolutes for pragmatic reasons, such as maintain social order and good governance. In justifying truth claims for pragmatic reasons instead of philosophical, traditionalists display their part in the postmodern milieu.

Postmodernism is not a clearly definable concept, let alone an inherently evil one. According to scholars like Thomas Oden, postmodernism is best defined as that which is not modern. It is more a reactionary movement than a progressive one and has no cohesive agenda other than to undermine the modern worldview. The work done by postmodernism has actually done much to help conservatives. Twentieth-century modernism attempt to construct an edifice of truth to compete and eventually annihilate a Christian-revelatory truth. It embraced Darwinism as the authoritative scientific paradigm, "progress" as the authoritative social paradigm, and therapeutic-victimization as its psychological paradigm. In all of these ways, it made itself a competitor to Christianity and natural law governance, believing that these worldviews would not be able to survive their competition with "the fittest."

Postmodernism is America was largely precipitated by Vietnam and hippie disillusionment. The secular truth paradigms had largely failed in morally advancing the human race and a vacuum was created that created mass soul-searching. Christianity was not able to fill this void as it had largely capitulated to the modern worldview. In particular, Protestant Christianity had failed in bringing the Christian worldview to bear. "Christian" modernists continued to work in the intellectual realm, but without anything distinctively Christian; Christian fundamentalists had largely retreated from the intellectual realm.

Postmodern philosophy, vacuous in its own right, stepped into the void and began demolishing the secular edifices. Darwinism, "progress," and modern psychology had all failed in their promises for Utopian existence and had largely ignored their own philosophical assumptions along the way. But postmodernism by definition is not able to create anything, let alone an ideology. It has done positive and negative work in its deconstructing of truth paradigms (throwing the Christian baby out with the bathwater) and now leaves its own void.

As Christianity still struggles to regain its voice in America, it has largely left the work of reconstruction to neo-paganism. Instead of banishing God through pride in the intellect (like modernism), neo-paganism instill godlike spirituality into every crevice of this world. This modern pantheism, in its decimation of the transcendence of the Creator over His creation, subsequently blurs all other lines instituted by God (man/woman; human beings/animals/nature; etc.). As Goldberg helpfully notes, it also discards the quest for truth in employing empty rhetoric which is devoid of a telos.

Barack Obama is encapsulates the postmodern vacuum, but more importantly, the neo-pagan reconstruction. For that matter, President Bush displays similar characteristics (belief in human goodness, denial of Christianity exclusivity, etc.). The problem we face now is philosophical, not political. We have a captivating political figure rising on the wings of an ancient philosophy, which is soaring over the heights of all political factions (and even many religious traditions). There is a reason Obama has special appeal to the young, who largely belong to this new worldview. Traditionalists should not target Obama, the postmodern, but Obama, the neo-pagan. In order for Obama's messiahship to be made palatable, people must first come to view their need for this type of new-age messiahship. Let the Christian reconstruction of the postmodern intellect begin with haste before this pagan messiahship is realized and the kingdom of the pagan gods is brought to earth.

In the middle of the twentieth century, freedom-lovers in America found their hope on the verge of extinction. The modernist malaise threatened to sweep away the freedom of individuals, families, businesses, and the Church in its murky gray tide. The editors of National Review called this "the inexorable collectivist tide." When William F. Buckley launched the National Review in 1955 at age 29, he said that he hoped to "stand athwart history, yelling 'stop'!" Many had gotten lost in the modern utopian dream without questioning the premises it stood upon or the means with which it was trying to reach its idyllic end.

The conservative political ideology, though claiming the mantle of tradition, is relatively young. Early in the twentieth century, political philosophers like Russell Kirk and Frank Meyer, as well as German economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek, ushered in the intellectual seeds of which the conservative ideology would grow. These men represented the philosophical wave. Later, economist Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley made compelling public cases for the conservative ideology. They were the leaders of the popular wave. Finally, after Barry Goldwater's earlier loss in the race for President, Ronald Reagan swept into office in 1980. This marked the beginning of the successful political wave, also represented in the "Contract with America" in 1994 and the subsequent takeover of Congress by Republicans.

But of all these men, a compelling case could be made for Buckley as the most pivotal figure. He took the theories to the press, and using his incredible intellect and wit, used the press to tailor public opinion and usher in the conservative political age. The evils of socialism and its tyranny over all natural freedoms endowed to man, family, and Church has been delayed from its "inevitable" triumph over the American "experiment". If in the coming decades an overbearing government becomes the caretaker of human hearts and souls, it will do so only because the brilliant Buckley is no longer able to "stand athwart history." If Americans are wise and grateful for their freedoms, they will gladly make his legacy their continuing cause.

One of the best portions of the old Sports Illustrated NFL Preview issues was the "Five Fearless Predictions" given by one of their experts. Extravagant claims were made, exciting the sports fan's imagination. If any of those predictions were fulfilled, the expert would receive due praise. In that light, I am making several predictions for this coming election cycle, just to put myself "on the record," so to speak.

1) African-American voters will become more disillusioned with the Democratic Party than they have in decades as a result of the racially-tinged comments made by the Clintons. As a result, they may become slightly more receptive to Republican overtures if Hillary is the nominee.

2) If Barack Obama takes the Democratic nomination, he will handily win the Presidency, as a historic shift in the "evangelical" vote propels him by a significant margin. The largest Republican voting has been trending toward more liberal positions, theological and political, and will rally behind a charismatic Obama with his profession of faith in Jesus Christ. They may even give him close to 50% of their vote.

3) Hillary Clinton, presuming she will be the Democratic nominee, will do more than ever to alienate male voters, as the vindictive spirit and crocodile tears which make her sympathetic to liberal women will appear to men as emotional manipulation, gender-based hate-mongering, and blatantly sexist. Men can be offended by such a posture--just ask Barack Obama.

4) The nomination of Mike Huckabee, likely as a VP candidate if anything, would help hasten the political demise of the so-called Religious Right. His suave, charismatic, stump-speech persona may play well to religious conservatives, but it will also undermine his credibility amongst more mainstream voters. In addition, his nomination would provide Democrats and Independents the opportunity of a lifetime to mortally wound the Religious Right political movement.

And the most audacious of predictions...(drum roll please)

5) Assuming the Hillary Clinton and John McCain win their parties' respective nominations, the McCain camp will make under-the-table overtures to Barack Obama to run as McCain's VP on a split ticket. McCain is rumored to have made similar overtures to John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama may covet the opportunity to become the first African-American VP. If he runs with McCain, that may very well happen, even against the establishment-endorsed campaign of the mighty Hillary.

Many would describe the low popularity of Republicans to be the inevitable result of pragmatic concerns. The war in Iraq has made Republicans look incompetent and uncritical of their own plans. Reiterating the decades-old offer of lowering taxes has made them captive to the cliche. Even their tough line on immigration seems to reinforce the old stereotype of Republicans as racist and incompassionate.

The pragmatic concerns are too simplistic, however. What we are currently seeing is likely a philosophical backlash against Republicans--not for their conservatism, but for their nursing of the stale beer of modernism. Older voters still desire the meaty steak of principle, while the younger generations are clamboring more and more for the sizzle of rhetoric. The rise of this mysterious philosophical movement called "postmodernism" must be dealt with by the Republican Party. While postmodernism is hard to define, a core characteristic is found in its rebuttal of modernism. It lacks some of the optimism in human ingenuity and it sees truth as a means for power. It also has forsaken the abstract principles for concepts that touch people and imbue their lives with meaning.

Enter: Republicans. The Iraq War is very unpopular, likely because it smacks of an antiquated idealism. Diverting his course from the original realist argumentation, President Bush began to speak of bringing democracy to an evil tyranny. Even supporters don't buy that as a legitimate argument for war in Iraq. We are over there because Saddam Hussein left his WMD program to our imagination, which can run away with itself because of past wars and genocides brought about by the Hussein regime.

Our approach to immigration seems great in principle, as does personal savings accounts for social security, but until we can define these issues in personal terms, we'll continue to lose the battle for hearts and minds. More and more of the electorate is coming to hate abstractions. Insetad, they want people who can relate to them on a personal level, captivating their dreams for a better tomorrow rather than their aspirations for a "higher" principle.

This does not mean compromising on principle, but realizing that politics=principle + people. There are two horizons of understanding: the objective principle and the subjective interpretation. It is integral for the Republican Party to understand that they can't rely simply on knowing their principles, but knowing their people as well so that they can effectively communicate those principles. The times are changing, and unless Republicans learn to deal with that reality very soon, they will learn again what it is like to spend half of a century in the political minority.

There has been much demonizing and political demagoguery at work in the current debate over causes of the wildfires, and frankly, I find it appalling. When natural disasters strike, are we going to resign ourselves to superficial discussions on politics? I doubt global warming had anything to do with these fires, and even if uncleared brush and arson were contributing factors, these fires were bound to occur.

I'll say right off the bat that I speak as one who has suffered no significant loss. When fire neared my city, Escondido, I didn't wait for the evacuation order--I just threw most of my earthly possessions in my car and drove to Seattle. Why not turn an evacuation into a vacation? That question is not to make light of the situation--I know of neighbors, church family, and community members who have lost homes. When students like myself return to Escondido, we will work with others in our city to rebuild.

With that personal anecdote aside, let be prescribe Morpheus' advice to Neo in The Matrix to ask the right questions. Whenever tragedy strikes, we always have to find human actors and socio-political factors to be de facto whipping-boys, because, hey!--when we have something tangible to blame, then we can find tangible solutions and prevent such tangible factors from exacting their demonic enterprize in the future.

For every Columbine, there must be demonic parents and lax gun laws. For every 9/11, there must be terrorist plots, government conspiracies, and incompetent airport security workers. Even for a hurricane bearing down on the poor city of New Orleans, we have to give "her" a name and ask why our big brothers in the federal government didn't impose bigger barriers between the she-devil and the city she waylaid. This is not to say that these actors and factors could not be improved to minimalize tragedies, but when are we going to consider the possibility that the evil and brokenness that have affected this world are sometimes outside of our control?

In America, everybody likes to be their own boss, but who of us can reign in the wind and the rain? Instead of offering trite answers, we should make it our business to ask painful questions. I'll readily admit, it sucks probing the deeper questions--the ones that inevitably expose human inability to form a utopian ideal.  If we ask these questions, we will find that the solutions do not lie in larger bureaucracies or stronger building foundations, but in an old, rugged cross that offers the solution to the problems of human sin and suffering and a broken world. In due time, when the mighty government is shown to be as weak as humanity and the supposedly-secure foundations fall, it will be the Person and the work accomplished on that cross that will offer us hope.

That cross will also be the driving motivation for many who will give their heart, time, and love to rebuild what their neighbors have lost. It is time to rebuild, and that time will come again and again.

To any and all readers of this blog:

I am about to embark upon a project on the mind of the "Starbucks Generation." I seek to learn about the spirituality and beliefs about reality and truth amongst people in my age group. For those of you young twenty-somethings, could you suggest any books by people our age on such a topic, or the books that people our age read for the sake of their spirituality?

Thank you kindly,

Stephen Roberts

Is is time to reject the compassionate conservatism label along with the President who became its champion?  To use an old cliche: Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  You might not appreciate the practical outworking of this philosophy in the Bush presidency, but it is crucial to true conservatism as an underriding philosophy.

"Compassionate conservatism" was not just a catch phrase for President Bush, it signaled a shift away from the social darwinism that has come to increasingly pollute all political philosophy--even modern conservatism.   The American people know this.  That is why half the electorate voted for the President in 2000.  Conservatism is an attractive political philosophy, unless it comes to presuppose an optimistic view of human nature.  According to the liberal philosophy, such a poor presupposition leads to a culture of entitlement.  Human suffering and poverty are seen as both an anomaly and inherently curable.  An entitlement society is made the means to a utopian dream.

When the faulty presupposition of a good human nature is employed by political conservatism, it inevitably becomes social darwinism.  Instead of breeding entitlement, it breeds a sense of pride and accomplishment.  Since the world is structured under the "survival of the fittest" scheme, conservatives who buy into this philosophy come to see themselves as "the fittest."  All who aren't fit are seen as fundamentally weak, and deserving of their lower place in society due to their incompetence, stupidity, and laziness.

Thus, became of faulty presuppositions and an immoral philosophical system, conservatism has been defined as many as a libertarian free-for-all that ignores the downtrodden.  Compassionate conservatism, however, comes to terms with human depravity.  It realizes the subservience of the government to the family, local community, and religious institutions, but it also cares for the needs of those who slip through the net of these various institutions.  Success is viewed as a blessing, and poverty is viewed as an object of compassion and relief.  Instead of singing "God Bless America" with an air of having earned God's blessing, true conservatism should sing "God Bless America" as an acknowledgement of His undeserved mercy to our society.

When I was in high school, I read an article in my school paper that was so vitriolic and uninformed that even my infantile, adolescent mind found itself incensed.  A student from my school had decided to cut and paste several of the infamous quotes of our swollen-tongued President (then a candidate) and use them to lambaste the President's intellect.  I politely reminded her in a counterpoint article that 1) all politicians say stupid things (and I gave examples from Clinton and Gore), and 2) President Bush graduated from an Ivy League institution with adequate, if not superb grades.  Not too shabby.

The attacks on President Bush's intellect in 2000 were so excruciatingly baseless, and later fluttered off in the wind by what I hope was a sudden breeze of common sense.  Perhaps part of the charm of our current President in that initial run was the fact that he would say "increase" instead of "augment" and "lacking" instead of "bereft."  The American people don't want a spelling bee champion as their President, nor are they checking the SAT section for an 800 on the verbal section.  They want a leader who is bold, decisive, honest, and forward-thinking.

Regarding the aforementioned traits, I must confess that I feel a bit betrayed by our President.  When he first ran, I was not old enough to vote, but I manned the local voting precinct all day, handing out pamphlets.  I watched with tears in my eyes as he shouted through a megaphone in his simple, straight-forward way while standing upon the rubble of the World Trade Center.  When he moved forward in his plans to invade Iraq, I followed him with "Amens" and "Bout Time!"

It was at this point that he started to fail me and his other supporters.  Rather than stand under the limelight and explain his decisions to the American people, President Bush chose to shirk in the shadows.  I might expect a retort at this point about all of the impassioned speeches making the case for the war that the President delivered precipitating the invasion.  What about after that?  Every time he spoke on a pressing issue, he was two weeks too late.  His reluctance to speak and tendency to stay below the radar (which doesn't work for a President) gave the American people a natural suspicion of incompetence and duplicity.

In that suspicion, we find the root of President Bush's failure.  In my opinion, he was often bold, decisive, always honest, and sometimes forward-thinking.  The problem is that the majority of the American people don't agree with my analysis.  Even many reputable conservatives--Rich Lowry in and April issue of NR, for one--effectively leveled the charge of incompetence against the President.  It is his fault that they had that perception or, as the case may be, misperception.  Mr. President, if someone argues against you, you must argue back!  The silent treatment only works with playground provocations.

Perhaps we were all a bit spoiled by the warm, visionary demeanor of President Reagan and the teary-eyed empathizing of President Clinton.  Then again, President Bush had a charm of his own.  He was a "straight-shooter."  Yet, because of his reluctance to keep shooting, he is finding himself to be the slain hero of a conservative movement that believed he would rise to the challenge.

Hillary Clinton might be vindictive and power-hungry.  Barack Obama may often appear naive and even at times incompetent.  John Edwards' hair might receive more attention than the effects of his populist policies.  Give the Democrats credit, though, in that they have accomplished a feat that seems incomprehensible to Republicans--presenting Presidential candidates who don't resemble poster children of the Good 'ol Boys Club.

It is not like Democrats have employed a policy of political Affirmative Action either.  Hillary, Obama, and Edwards all happen to be the strongest candidates on the left side of aisle (which is now largely run by the extremist blogosphere).

Do Republicans not realize how much the Blue states hate the thoroughly Red South and Midwest?  Sure, that hatred is arrogant and ignorant and displays the stubborn and unreflective mentality often charged to those in the Red states, but the progressive, "I invented culture" snobs on the Coasts still represent a good 50% of the electorate, and include within their ranks many of the independents who are instinctively conservative but reflexively liberal.  Those "purplers" within their ranks are willing to vote for a Republican, but he or she must be one who appears to belong to and even represent the 21st century.

We must consider the "Bush Effect" as well.  Despite the reality of the matter, most people--even many Republicans--have the perceptions of President Bush as an old-money, uneducated, outdated, and politically-naive politician.  I strongly disagree with all of those perceptions, but they are perceptions nonetheless.  Often politics becomes petty, and principles are lost amongst the fog of perceptions.

As much as I hate the irrational animosity of many on the Left toward certain regions of the country and the current President, they are able to dictate popular attitudes.  Until conservatives are able to counter this ability and change popular perceptions, they must be willing to play on liberal turf.

What that means--no more cookie-cutter Republicans!  For all of you who have been jumping on the Thompson bandwagon, as good of a candidate as he is, jump back off!  Will he really be able to win Reagan Democrats and propel himself to the White House, or will he wither under the charge of being another relic of the past who wears the same size boots as our current President?

Where is our storehouse of young, energetic visionaries?  Where are our rhetoricians?

Can the US, as the world's lone superpower (for at least another 5 years), be both strong and compassionate in its conduct of international affairs? That is a good question, and is yet to be decisively answered.

The Bush Administration will have some impressive accomplishments to its name in the realm of foreign policy by the time it concludes. It stared down the most dangerous country in the world at the time, Iraq, while bucking the opinions of corrupted foreign elites and weak-willed second-guessers at home. On top of this demonstration of principled strength, the Bush Administration had also dramatically ramped up efforts to combat the Aids pandemic in Africa, and is having a relative measure of success.

At the same time, the current administration, and the country it represents, are failing in many important regards on the international front. Resistance to Iran's incursions into Iraq, Venezuela's imperialist tendencies toward Colombia, and Russia's across-the-board power grab has been the equivalent of a feeble younger sibling crying "Stop it!" to his bully of an older brother.  Whining without action only makes a body look more pathetic.

International relief is also lacking in key, easily-remedial areas.  One such area is that of malaria. Tens of thousands of people in Africa are dying preventable deaths each year because of ridiculous environmental regulations that prohibit the use of DDT.  There are many such issues, environmental and otherwise, that are currently en vogue with Western celebrities and result in the death of forgotten legions.

Despite several effective policies and measures implemented by the Bush Administration, the US is currently showing itself to be inept. Our determination to deter foreign aggression is lacking, and so is our willingness to consider the needs of the poor millions on their terms, without the strings of morally-askew Western ideologies.  We must display a Reaganesque iron fist of deterrence, and an effective policy of open-handed compassion. We have the resources in every sector of the American economy and social sphere, but do we have the resolve?

The rebuilding of the American military has received attention and advocacy from many of the current Republican presidential candidates--and rightly so. Improvement is needed with regard to both quality and quantity--not only because of the need to meet the threats of militant Islam, but as a general deterrant.

One of the greatest legacies of the Reagan Presidency was the ability to win the Cold War without firing a shot. While there were still isolated squirmishes, such as Afghanistan, where there was indirect conflict between the two powers, there was never a major clash. Reagan believed that our military could not only be used proactively, but as leverage to minimize and prevent potential conflicts.

In the same way, the US must only have the ability to "act large" but "be large." Just as protection from some animals requires people to present and even exaggerate their full stature, so the US must make clear that this country cannot be prayed upon.

This pertains not only to the threat of militant Islam. Historian Niall Ferguson recently predicted a return of Russia to its Soviet past using a relatively analogy to the pre-Hitler Weimar Republic. China has also been shown time and again to be arming itself to become the dominant power on Asia, employing the maxim of leaders past to bide its time until it is fully ready to battle. Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez is spreading his corrupting influence throughout Central and South America.

The US must rebuild its military--increasing its share of the GDP to 4%, modernizing its outdated equipment, and increasing its troop strength--in order to deter a number of rising threats. Meeting the militant Islamic threat is not sufficient, for the threats shouted in the Islamic world are also being whispered in Moscow, Beijing, and Caracas.

Striking out into the realm of fiction, Hank Hanegraaff has joined author Sigmund Brouwer in writing a high-action thriller that will keep readers on the edge of their seats.  In Fuse of Armageddon, political intrigue is interwoven with theological critique in such a way as to give substance to this stylish thriller.

The story centers around an American hostage negotiator, Mulvaney Quinn, who attempts to win the release of a group of American Evangelicals who have been captured by the notorious terrorist, Khaled Safady. Among their number stands one of Pat Robertson's stature--Jonathan Silver. Before Quinn can win the release of these Evangelicals and their leader, he must meet Safady's demand: a payment to the Palestinian people of a number equal to the amount that American Evangelicals have given to the nation of Israel over the years.

Within this unique plot, there is room for both high-octane action and theology. Dispensationalism--a theology that holds end times prophecies to be woodenly literal--lies at the center of Hanegraaff's crosshairs. This theology appears in the novel to be ignorant, racist, and illogical.

In this critique, Hanegraaff does quite well. He reveals inconsistencies in the Dispensational argument and garners sympathy for Palestinian civilians. Yet, he is not overly partisan--the ravages of terrorism on the Israeli people is shown in its full brutality. The political dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is shown to be complex, and also adversely affected by misguided Dispensational theology and the ensuing millions that ignorant adherents of this theology pour into Israel.

I heartily endorse the book for both its entertainment value and for its thoughtful political and theological discussions. The storyline becomes a bit too extravagant toward the end of the book, and lacks the precision and cohesion of those books written by more experienced authors. It will be a useful entry point for a discussion on end-times theology for the millions of Christians unacquainted with such discussions.

Amidst the flaming wreckage of Giuliani's handling of the abortion issue and the firey, profane rhetoric of the hot-tempered McCain, I have become persuaded at this point to support Mitt Romney.

By process of elimination, he remains the only viable option. Sure, he might seem a bit too polished, and he may be unconvincing when explaining his conversion to conservative social views, but he also shows both a level head and a willingness to stand on principle. Until McCain can learn the former and Giuliani the latter, Romney is my dark horse in this race.

For Republican voters, compulsion must come from the front and not from behind. Too often, we have been driven to the polls in support of mediocrity. Our frontrunners must exhibit leadership, not fearmongering about the blonde-haired boogie monster in the proverbial closet.