Time to stop looking for the next Reagan
By Brian Schoeneman | Sunday, December 18th, 2011 | PoliticsNormally, we want contributors to respond to other contributors in the comments here on Bearing Drift, but after reading Ken Falkenstein’s post and drafting a response that was way too long for the comments, I chose to turn this into a separate post. I think this topic is an important discussion point and one we don’t seem to be having within the Republican party. The issue at hand is simply this – why are we constantly comparing our potential leaders against nearly impossible to replicate standards? Why do we keep looking for great when the guy we’re trying to beat isn’t even fair?
It is simply time for us to stop looking for the next Ronald Reagan. It is also time for us to stop judging every presidential candidate against Reagan. Doing so simply isn’t realistic, nor is it fair to those candidates.
We can all debate what it was that made Ronald Reagan great. Regardless of where you stand (or even if you disagree with the idea all together), most Americans – especially folks in our party – recognize that he was the greatest president in the latter half of the 20th century, and probably one of the top three in the entire century. If I had to rank them, I’d put Theodore Roosevelt on top, his cousin at #2 and Ronald Reagan in third place. The things each of them did have far outlasted their presidencies. They each deserve to rank up there with Washington and Lincoln.
That’s why searching for the next Reagan is so futile. He’s a once or twice a century figure. He was an extraordinary figure and those of us who were alive to remember him in office recognize that we were lucky to have lived through his presidency, and many of us feel the same way that Democrats feel about Kennedy and FDR. He was rare and that’s what made him so great. If every king was a Charlemagne, what would make Charlemagne so great?
To compare our current batch of presidential candidates against Reagan is simply unfair and it’s counterproductive.
Think about it this way – if we never went to war until we identified the next Napoleon or Patton to lead our troops, we’d never be able to defend ourselves. We shouldn’t let perfect become the enemy of good, and treating every presidential primary as the political equivalent of choosing the next Dalai Lama isn’t productive. All it does is lead to cynicism and lethargy. If the only way we can excite Republicans for a candidate is to give them a Winston Churchill, we’re in serious trouble.
Instead of wasting time trying to find the next Ronald Reagan, we should instead be looking for the next Coolidge, Eisenhower, Ford or George H.W. Bush – men who were competent, handled the job well, and while they weren’t in the same league with Ronald Reagan or Theodore Roosevelt, they were the kind of solid Republican leaders that we built our party on. They were the kinds of men that have consistently won the White House since the turn of the 20th Century and why Republicans have held the job so often during the last hundred years. And while no one is going to call Coolidge, Ford or Bush 41 great, there is one thing that everyone can call them: President.
Is at least one of our current crop of candidates in that league? I think so.
So instead of wasting our time trying to find the next once-in-century leader, let’s focus our energies on finding someone who can do the job and who has the confidence of the American people – two things our current president can’t claim.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A veteran political professional, long-time Republican party activist and attorney Brian W. Schoeneman has been offering his opinions at Bearing Drift since 2010. He serves on the Board of Virginia Line Media, LLC, which operates Bearing Drift and spends his days representing the U.S. Merchant Marine in Washington, D.C. He hails from Fairfax County, Virginia, where he lives with his wife and son.
Comments
37 Responses to "Time to stop looking for the next Reagan"
That’s well said, Brian. As a matter of fact, I’ve been thinking an awful lot about Harding’s campaign claim of a “Return to Normalcy.”
We’re not looking for an American Idol, a “transformational leader”, or someone who is going to remake America.
We need a steady hand at the tiller to navigate some pretty serious economic and budgetary waters.
It’s time to stop “person worship”. It’s in the church and unfortunately in politics as well. We want perfection when aren’t ourselves, funny isn’t it? We need the most qualified for the job and get behind the person as a collective team. You noticed I said person. I hope in my lifetime I will see a qualified woman as President of the United States. I haven’t seen her yet, but I still hope.
Perfection is the enemy of good.. strive for perfection and accept excellent. We have great minds who surpass Reagan almighty blessed be he but without his mastery of stage presence, delivery and warm personality. If Reagan were among the candidates running today would we recognize his future greatness?
Probably not, Turbo. Most folks didn’t recognize it the first two times he ran for President, and most didn’t accept it even after he won. His apotheosis didn’t happen until after he was out of office, unlike FDR, TR, Lincoln and Washington.
Great post, Brian. Conservatives like to rhapsodize about The Great Communicator without remembering that his approval rating cratered at only 43% during his first mid-term election, exactly where Obama is right now. If there had been a Tea Party movement in 1980, Jimmy Carter would have been a two-term President.
My point has nothing to do with supporting our nominee against the Democrats. I almost always support the Republican nominee (other than when there are intolerable character issues).
My point has to do with selecting a candidate FOR that nomination. In that regard, I DO want a candidate who has Reagan’s fundamental traits of core conservative convictions, an ability to articulate them well, electability, qualification for office, the wisdom to know when to hold firm and when to compromise, and a consistent record that gives us confidence that when he does compromise it is truly necessary and not just the latest cave-in to the left. These are nowhere close to impossible standards. In fact, they should be baseline requirements for the nominee of a great national conservative party.
I agree that there are no perfect candidates, and, of course, Reagan himself wasn’t perfect. But a party of conservatives should be able to find a viable candidate who has demonstrated a history of core conservative convictions. We should not have to keep settling for a George H.W. Bus or a Bob Dole or a John McCain or a Mitt Romney as our national standard-bearer because we convince ourselves that a truly conservative candidate can only emerge once or twice a century.
Obama and the Democrats have dug this country into a very deep hole (with some assistance from G.W. Bush and Denny Hastert), and we can’t afford to wait 50 more years to repair that damage. We need a Reaganesque president NOW to rescue this country by unraveling and repealing those leftist policies. A merely competent caretaker president will not have the courage and backbone to get that job done. Because I want to restore this country and save it for my children, I stand by my post.
Less than a decade ago Mitt Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts as a self-proclaimed “moderate” with “progressive” views. Now he says he’s a conservative. I will probably have to support Romney by default and hope that he governs as the conservative that he says he now is, but I think it’s appalling that we couldn’t do better in this vitally important election. A great national conservative party SHOULD be able to do better.
So, all that fiery rhetoric and the punch line is a default candidate? No wonder the GOP is fighting the Dems for dibs on lowest poll numbers.
Ken, Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat early in his career. His political philosophy evolved significantly over time – and there’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t believe anyone is born philosophically pure. We all struggle to define ourselves and so did Reagan.
How do you define a “truly conservative” candidate? You appear to say you want someone like Reagan, but we all know Reagan’s record and he did more than a few things that can’t be called “truly conservative” – at least, not in the modern sense. You keep changing the goal posts.
There’s a big difference between saying you want someone who has core convictions, etc. and saying you want another Ronald Reagan. We all want the best candidate we can find, but elections aren’t about finding the best person for the job. They’re about choosing the best person from the choices we’re given.
I’m sure there are plenty of folks who have the same qualities as Ronald Reagan out there, but none of them have the experience he did when he ran for President, nor do those folks have the desire. It takes far more than the handful of attributes you’ve listed here that you desire to make a president.
It’s worthless for us to waste our time wishing for something or someone better. We need to choose a candidate and go from there. And, as I noted, all we do is set ourselves up for disappointment when we go looking for Brett Favre and we have to choose between a half-dozen Trent Dilfers. But even Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring, and at this point, that’s good enough for me.
Goldwater.
Reagan.
…?
It’s a trifecta. Conservatives should be looking for that one person to fulfill the legacy of the conservative movement in America.
Newt Gingrich! Mitt Romney! Rick Santorum!
Meh.
Yeah, I’ll say it Darrell – give me the Republican that can win. You can say the poll numbers are low all you want – but until you show me a 3rd party that polls over 30%, then your comment is irrelevant.
That was Buckley’s maxim: the most conservative candidate who can win…
One problem with your trifecta there, Shaun. Goldwater lost. By a landslide.
I’m less interested in finding someone to fulfill a legacy that may or may not exist – I just want someone competent to begin fixing the mess Obama and the Democrats made.
Brian: You have adopted the leftists’ spin on Reagan hook, line, and sinker. Yes, Reagan was a New Deal Democrat in the 1930s and 40s, but he was also a strident anti-communist from the beginning. More importantly, by the 1950s he was on the speaking circuit advocating conservative policies, and by the 1960s he was an undisputed leader of the conservative movement on par with Barry Goldwater. By the time he ran for president in 1976 and 1980 (not counting his token convention candidacy in 1968) he had been such a consistent conservative for such a long period of time that no one, friend or foe, doubted where he stood or the sincerity of his convictions.
As president, his most lasting legacies were that he slashed tax rates, thus revitalizing an economy severely recessed by the Keynesian economic policies of his predecessors, and rebuilt our military to the point of winning the Cold War. He also appointed the most conservative justices possible to the Supreme Court, and we owe the conservative majority that has existed ever since largely to him. Yes, he later raised some taxes and he had large budget deficits (by then-existing standards), but those were not Reagan’s policies; they were the compromises that he had to make with the Democrat House of Representatives to get the defense funding he wanted that resulted in our victory in the Cold War. Reagan didn’t run on those policies, and if we’d had a Republican Congress, Reagan would not have enacted those policies.
I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not looking for a president who refuses to compromise. I’m looking for a president with core conservative convictions. We don’t have any electable candidates in the current race who have those core convictions, and yes, I’m frustrated and disappointed by that fact.
Ken,
You’re as guilty as Brian. You keep repeating a lie long enough, you’ll believe it. You seriously don’t believe the candidates running – Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry – do not have conservative convictions?
Seriously?
Or is it because these candidates don’t share your high litmus test for a candidate? Perhaps, as Brian is arguing, because you keep looking for Reagan and he’s not there.
Huntsman is a republican “Al Gore”.
Did a computer study. I match to Paul, Perry and Bachmann in that order. Gingrich was my most negative match. Romney is starting to look better to me.
What if Carter won because people were still mad at Republicans over Nixon.
What if Clinton won because people were mad because some fool republican said “Read my lips, no new taxes”.
What if Barry won because people were mad about the Iraq invasion, mortgage meltown, and economic diaster; and blamed Bush and the Republicans for all three.
What if Repblicans hire the best five political advertising companies for next year. They will need them.
Ken, I haven’t bought into anything. I simply recognize that there are two versions of most great men in history – the legendary version and the real version. I prefer the real version as those folks are more human, and thus, more easily emulated. Reagan was not always the man he was when he was President, and his record in office, whether as Governor of California or as President wasn’t the conservative nirvana you seem to think it was. There were a lot of reasons for that and they all contribute to who he was as a leader.
I’m glad that you are at least willing to recognize that the executive branch can do nothing without the Congress. Even Reagan – a man who transformed the office – couldn’t do everything he wanted on his own.
The fact is, we’re not going to have another Reagan simply because the times are different. We aren’t locked in a worldwide struggle against a regime that actually could destroy us if it wanted to. We don’t have that kind of a defense priority. We’re in an information based economy now, as opposed to when he was president. We’re in a global economy as well. Societal attitudes have changed on a laundry list of issues that were critical for him but not as important now. And, just for the record, Reagan had two hits with Rehnquist to CJ and Scalia, but he also had two misses with Kennedy and O’Connor (at least in terms of conservatism) so I wouldn’t give him that much credit.
Again, we don’t need to waste time finding another Reagan. Those types of men aren’t found. They present themselves when they’re ready. Reagan wasn’t sitting around waiting to be discovered.
When it comes to presidential candidates, now, as Reagan said, is a time for choosing. Not a time for searching.
The election is going to be about the economy, so why not Huntsman? He was a great governor in Utah and his economic plan was supported by the WSJ. His health care policy is a great free market based idea. And he was the ambassador to China (China is a big foreign policy issue for the US)
I’m hoping that Huntsman plays the same roll this cycle that Romney did in 2008. He is sensible, makes no gaffes, and is around to run again in 2016 or 2020.
Brian: You don’t actually want Huntsman to play that role. Romney’s role in 2008 was to come in second to the guy who lost the election.
I know that’s not what you’re hoping for.
Also doubt Huntsman’s ability to climb out of the single digits….he just refuses to throw out the kind of red meat rhetoric the base wants.
I think at this point the GOP is down to Mitt and Newt, realizing that Ron Paul has a rabid following that will allow him to stay in the race for quite a while without actually ever winning anything.
I think Mitt gives the GOP a chance, but Newt does not.
“elections aren’t about finding the best person for the job. They’re about choosing the best person from the choices we’re given.” – Brian S.
WHAT????!
Sounds like a recipe for accepting mediocrity….or worse. It all depends on how the question is framed for you. Sorry, I will continue to look for the next “Reagan”. Even as I look for the best opportunity to defeat Obama, that doesn’t mean necessarily that I am all giddy about the choice.
To STOP looking for Reagan or whomever your template is, and just accept the pool of inferior choices year after year is cowardly and un-freakin’-American. You should always try to get the best person in the position. Excellence still means something.
That doesn’t mean you can’t accept that you won’t always have the best of choices. It doesn’t mean never compromising on anything. You can throw out the utter bull crap about purity all you want, but that does not change the truth. The truth is we do compromise at times. Do you think I agree with Reagan on everything? I don’t. Do I agree with Cuccinelli and Radtke on everything? No. Sure, oh yes, the moron(MD Russ)with the Tea Party would have given Carter a 2nd term comment,did get under my skin.
How can you sit there and tell me to just accept any slate of “chosen for me” “Big Government” candidates? No, I am not crazy about our choices. Regardless, President Obama has done such a horrible job, you guys have the luxuary of me voting for what ever candidate you put up. We can’t afford to have him re-elected. Again, I am not a Ron Pauler, but he is my preference at the moment. That said, I will vote for anyone you guys put up. I just pray Paul doesn’t run as an independent if he doesn’t win. This is one election we can’t afford a Democrat re-election in. You could nominate Bill Clinton and I would still vote your way. I am very willing to take the lesser of “2 very evils” this time. This is RINO heaven, cuz I will just vote for anybody on this one. We have no choice
That doesn’t mean I will stop looking for the ideal candidates in the future. I can’t stand hearing people preach the wonders of being a gutless lemming.
“until you show me a 3rd party that polls over 30%, then your comment is irrelevant.”
What’s becoming irrelevant is the idea of parties at all.
When did I say anything about “chosen for me” candidates?
My point is simple – we don’t get to create who we want to run. We have to choose from the list of folks who are willing to put themselves through the hell of a presidential campaign process. We select from those who offer themselves to run.
Having done that myself, I know it isn’t easy and it’s not something anybody can do. There are plenty of people out there who would make fine Presidents who will never run for the job. It’s not just about picking the best person for the job – all too often, that person is never on the ballot and you can’t force anyone to run who doesn’t really want it.
You should be a little more careful about throwing the gutless phrase around, Britt.
Britt,
Take a deep breath. On one hand, you call me a “moron” for suggesting that Carter would have won a second term if there had been a Tea Party candidate in 1980. Then, you turn around and say that you “pray” that Ron Paul won’t run as a Third Party candidate in 2012 because, “This is one election we can’t afford a Democrat re-election in.”
Do you even read what you type before hitting the “Submit” button?
Brian, perhaps I read you wrong, because it looks like you are changing your wording here. Instead of “They’re about choosing the best person from the choices we’re given”, you are saying “choose from the list of folks who are willing to put themselves through the hell of a presidential campaign process.”
One looks more like a blind rubber stamping of the party line and not demanding better. The latter pointing to the reality that the best are often discouraged from running due to the unfair rigors of it all. To that I would agree. This applies to lower level elections as well. And I am not calling you “gutless” I am saying you are asking others to be gutless, by just accepting the menu presented no matter how unpalatable it might be. It didn’t come across to me that you were selling realities of not always having the best available. To me it sounded like “stop looking”. That is unacceptable. Anyone willing to stop looking is indeed to me mindless and gutless. If you want to call for making things more humanly tolerable in the election process, maybe I can get on board with some reasonable reform.
MD Russ: You did bring up a reason to clarify what I said. I was in no way inconsistent, but I can see how you would come up with that mistaken perception.In fact what I said actually refutes your silly assertion.
1) You say a Tea Party would have ensured a 2nd term for Carter. I took that to mean by either “staying home” or running a 3rd party? (Just as an aside, Independent Anderson did not prevent Reagan from winning did it?)
2)My saying that I would hope Ron Paul would not run, is because if he ran as a third party candidate, I would be forced to vote against him. I would vote for the Republican. I am a Libertarian and a Tea Partier, so you tell me how voting against Ron Paul and FOR the Republican nominee is in any way analogous to Reagan (Ironically who we shouldn’t look for anymore according to some)losing a vote or the election.
In a primary given the opportunity, I would likely vote for Ron Paul. In the general where he ran as an independent, I would be sick about it, but I would vote for the inferior Republican nominee. In general, I am against accepting the lesser of 2 evils, but there are indeed times where you must. This is one of them. Carter would be another unacceptable 2nd term. Another horrific president.
Hey, I did take your truly unfair jab at the Tea Party personally. You’re speaking about the Tea Party from the perspective of someone of obvious loathing for it. You clearly don’t understand us. You just know we make some things terribly inconvenient for the establishment. Some people can’t handle those unwilling to blindly rubber stamp. Too bad.Do your job Republicans, or things will get Tea Partyish.
Britt, if you know of another way that primary candidates in a presidential race emerge let me know. Because the only way I know is that they decide they want to run and put themselves forward. How else are we “given” candidates for President?
We can demand as much “better” as we want – that doesn’t mean we’re going to get them. No amount of reform is going to make the process better. It’s a difficult, grueling process even under the best of circumstances and there’s nothing we can do to change it.
Honestly, I really don’t have any idea what you mean by looking to begin with. How do we do that, anyway?
Brian, you were the one with “looking” in the title of your article.
And my use of the word “looking” referred to Ken’s piece.
I guess you’re conceding my point.
I may be conceding your point that you don’t understand what “looking” means.
Brian, if all you serve at a restaurant is crap, your customers will go elsewhere. They will indeed be “looking” for better elsewhere.
What argument are you putting forth? Accept it because only poor excuses for conservatives are willing to run?
That false arguement doesn’t work for me. I won’t accept it.
Maybe “Big Government” fakes are controlling who is allowed a fair shot by denying establishment support. If merit is meaningless and blind adherence to the party name is everything, yea, the good people won’t be interested in running.
If you ever do get what “looking” means, you might understand the Tea Party a little better.
If understanding the Tea Party means I need to strap on a tin foil hat and start playing the ridiculous insider/establishment game, then I’m blissful in my ignorance.
You still haven’t answered my question – how do you believe our candidates for President are chosen? Not the primary process, but how they actually decide to run?
My argument is what I have been saying – we waste a lot of time wringing our hands trying to find the perfect candidate (who doesn’t exist) and comparing them with historically great leaders (like Reagan). That process only creates cynicism – the exact kind you’ve demonstrated in your comments – because no one is ever going to stack up against a legend.
We can’t create presidential candidates out of thin air, and you can’t grow them either. They spring up organically and the only thing the vast majority of us can do is determine who we think will do the best job, and that’s not out of a pool of candidates that includes everyone in America, it’s from the pool of candidates who have chosen to run.
The restaurant analogy only works if there’s only one restaurant in town and you have to buy dinner there. Because that’s effectively what the process is. We don’t get to pick who the candidates are. We get to pick who the nominee is.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how the process has been since the founding days of the Republic.
Come on Brian, it makes you look like Mike Barrett when you start acting like a bully, degrading others like the Tea Party.
As I have been trying to get on that very issues, how George Allen is the chosen one?
http://www.bearingdrift.com/2011/12/17/on-the-air-with-del-greg-habeeb-neal-mccluskey-and-shaun-kenney
Let me correct my statement.
As I have been trying to get an answer on the topic of “the chosen one”, how did George Allen become the chosen one.
I’m not degrading the Tea Party. I was told that I don’t understand it. I think I do, but hey – I’m not going to get into that kind of an argument.
How did George Allen become the “chosen one?” Well, he hasn’t yet. He still has to win. But he’s the frontrunner and that’s by virtue of the fact that he’s well known and one of the best Governors Virginia has ever had. But we wouldn’t have him as a choice on the ballot if he didn’t choose to run himself, and we have three other choices as well.
Isn’t it odd that we’ll go into a presidential year trying to find the next Ronald Reagan but no one goes into a gubernatorial year trying to find the next Thomas Jefferson?
I thought you weren’t a fan of Tommy Jefferson, Brian? Why not the next Patrick Henry?
George Allen is no Thomas Jefferson! More like the Benedict Arnold of fiscal conservatism.
Brian, John is right. You are looking like Mike Barrett standing there insisting the emperor is wearing clothes and nothing is wrong. If there was nothing wrong, there would be no Tea Party.
You’re argument is so empty you have to play games like act like I don’t know how the primary system works. You make pitiful excuses for everyone just to accept the meager offerings. Either the primary system has been hijacked by power brokers, or it is so bad off that good people won’t run. In the latter case, something needs to change. Maybe YOU are willing to accept leadership of second tier people on a continual basis, I am not. Accepting that recipe is accepting America’s future as a 2nd tier nation. Even now, you seem to continue to drive away from an assertion that, ok, we need to accept the fact that we won’t have stellar candidates. That would be reasonable. To just stop looking for excellence, however, is not reasonable. And let’s face it. If the primary process is being controlled, what kind of real leader would bother? Real leaders don’t suffer incompetence and a structure where results, merit, and ability come second to cronyism.
You come across like the bully that calmy asks his victim to just fork over the lunch money and drop to a fetal position. Just give up America? Just sell your spirit in exchange for what ever choices you are given?
Look, you can save your insane arguments. I will be forced to vote your way anyway. At this point, I am just holding out hope that there might be someone decent to work with. Because of Obama, I am willing to vote your way this time no matter the candidate. Next time might be a different story, though. Sooner or later, the swill you serve at your only restaurant in town will be so bad, someone will build a competitor. Tea Party, Libertarian, anything would be preferable at that point. I don’t accept non-choices or suggetions to stop looking for the next hero. I am willing to work with people that disagree with me on certain issues to accomplish that too. A bankrupt America is not an acceptable option. America being a second rate nation run into the ground by second rate “leaders” isn’t either.
“Either the primary system has been hijacked by power brokers, or it is so bad off that good people won’t run. In the latter case, something needs to change.”
Well, but candidates you like are running. They just aren’t getting any support. Just because you don’t like the result doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the process.
Politics is like that. Sometimes your guy (or gal) wins, sometimes they lose.
Acknowledging the reality that no one except George Allen has a ghost of chance at being the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate next year is just that…acknowledging reality. It’s something the Tea Party has struggled with.
Britt, if you think anything I’ve written is insane, I think you’ve lost grip with reality.
If you guys want to go off and start your own party, by all means – no one is stopping you.
I can’t think of any time period in American history where somebody somewhere didn’t think the entire country was going to hell in a hand basket and the political system was broken. That’s normal. It’s vanity talking to think that somehow we’re in a worse or unique position in history. And we will get thorough ugh the current travails, just as we’ve done before.
I think we have a pretty good crop of candidates right now, and I am willing to bet that at least one of them will be elected President.
What times might they be, Brian? Christians thrown to lions? WWI? WWII? Attempted genocide? Plague outbreaks? The Great Depression? Slavery in America? Battle at Antietam? Bay of Pigs? The Cold War? 9/11?
Just because you’re paranoid, Brian, doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you. Likewise, sometimes one’s world or way of living, truly is on the brink of utter devastation and something must be done.
Vanity sir, is thinking that the world revolves around you or your “team”. Vanity could indeed be believing that the current crisis is “THE crisis”. However,addressing the reality of current problems is hardly vanity. Vanity is the self interested position where you pretend the problem doesn’t exist.
That emperor looks pretty naked to me!
To stop “looking” or to stop attempting to right wrongs through out our continual time line is to sit back and willingly surrender to evil.
I never said this was a “uninque” anything. Although, Brian, I am sure Pres. Obama will use your arguement when when he derides the Republicans for claiming that the sky is falling.
All of your rhetoric dejour about the vanity of today’s problems aside, this really is serious business. Or maybe you don’t believe what Republicans will say when they claim President Obama was less than a stellar president?
Where we agree is that one of them will be President. They’re not all that bad, but “a pretty good crop” while loyal of you to say, is a bit generous. I will be voting for one of them, none the less.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.