Rand Paul

Is GOP Foreign Policy Getting More Libertarian, or Is it Just Anti-Democrat Opportunism?

|

That was, more or less, the question bandied about in The Independents aftershow on Monday, featuring former Reagan-administration deputy defense secretary K.T. McFarland and New York Times Magazine politics reporter Robert Draper, author of a recent profile of the libertarian movement:

When I interviewed Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) one year ago, during the run-up to what many believed was imminent U.S. bombing of Syria, he assessed the foreign policy divide within the GOP like this:

We're losing, on a good day, 70/30 among the Republicans. But we win every day among the grassroots, probably 80/20, 90/10.

In the case of Syria, the Rand Paul wing emerged politically victorious that time. But as any cursory search of the Reason archives will attest, the foreign policy civil war within the GOP is fierce and ongoing, and will include constant Republican attacks on Paul, as well as periodic hawkish embraces of Hillary Clinton.

So I reckon that the 30/70 math still applies in 2014, and is subject to even worse showing within two years, no matter how anti-interventionist the public may be trending. Why?

Because of the nature of power and tribalism. That is to say, when your tribe's not in power, you tend to be more sympathetic to anti-authoritarian critiques. Republicans in 2014 are with a straight face suing the president over the abuse of executive power, less than six years after a Republican presidency that exuberantly expanded the stuff on basic principle. On the reverse angle, Democrats in 2014 are psyched up to support a hawk with a lousy civil-liberties record not six years after filling every available airwave criticizing the "imperial presidency" of Darth W. Cheney.

It is in that sense that I believe David Frum is probably correct in his otherwise (in my judgment) incorrect assessment of Draper's piece, when he says this about the GOP:

The "libertarian moment" will last as long as, and no longer than, it takes conservatives to win a presidential election again.

That's assuming, of course, that the winner ain't Rand Paul….

Can an intervention-skeptic compete? |||

There's a reason why critics from both right and left want to quarantine societal libertarianism as a finite political subset within the Republican Party: That way it can just go away, next time the electoral pendulum swings. And they may be right, in the narrow sense of how professional pols actually behave once in power.

But skepticism about U.S. military interventionism runs a lot deeper throughout the country as a whole than among the people most invested in two-party politics. (See pollster Scott Rasmussen's interesting 2012 piece for Reason, "Ready to Cut Military Spending," for some details about that politician/populace gap.) As Jesse Walker wrote here last month,

In 2014, more Americans are skeptical about military action than at any other time in the last half-century. It is not impossible to get a majority to back certain sorts of intervention abroad. But it hasn't been this hard for a long time. 

Late last year, the Pew Research Center released one of its periodic surveys of American attitudes about foreign policy. Fifty-two percent of the country, a record high, endorsed the idea that "the U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own." Only 38 percent disagreed. This marked a striking change: Even in 1976, a year after the fall of Saigon, the people who disagreed with the statement narrowly outnumbered the ones who agreed with it. And Pew's results are not out of step with the data in other surveys. When Politico published a poll of likely voters in battleground races this week, for example, 67 percent said that American military actions "should be limited to direct threats to our national security."

One of the main points that Nick Gillespie and I emphasized in The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, is that new technologies, combined with the both the growing number of political independents and the growing deployment of independence as a political weapon, make it harder and harder for the two parties to govern in ways measurably out of sync with their respective bases.

So yes, the GOP's recent increase in intervention-skepticism should not be trusted even one little bit. But in a presidential election featuring an "unapologetically hawkish" front-runner, there's a significant opening for a candidate with foreign policy attitudes more in line with the American people. A contest like that has the potential to be more than mere "moment." 

Advertisement

NEXT: 3 GOP Congressmen Are Whining About SpaceX to NASA. Want to Guess Why?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I suspect it depends on which Republicans you’re talking about. If it’s John Boehner, it’s just opportunism. If it’s Rand Paul, it’s probably sincere.

    Considering that Rand Paul doesn’t control the GOP, probably more opportunism than idealism from the party overall. I also suspect he’s the only likely presidential candidate who would stick with that if he won.

    1. Largely agreed. I think rank and file members are getting more skeptical of the government’s ability to effectively wage wars and therefore becoming more non-interventionist generally. It’s a logical extention of skepticism with the effectiveness of any state action, a part of the conversative/libertarian temperment.

      And while this strain has resulted in the election of a few more non-interventionist GOP members, much of the non-interventionist talk these days is much pandering for votes and criticizing the president. Should the GOP end up successfully electing a hypothetical Mitt Romney like candidate, I anticipate the Cruz’ and Lee’s of the party to tow the lion.

      1. Agreed. There are a few non-interventionists who’ve filtered in, but there are more who see being pro-war as a nice source of pro-national defense soundbites so they can paint their opponents as a bunch of weaklings.

        It worked for Nixon over McGovern…still works today.

  2. Opportunism. But I’m OK with that since they would like to row the same direction as me for now, even if it’s for the wrong reasons. Next question.

  3. My money is on opportunism. And if the GOP wins the Whitehouse, we’ll find out rather quickly if I’m right or not.

    1. Unless Paul wins it.

      He’s the one who may be capable of reshaping the GOP for a generation. Much of the party will tow the lion, as partisans are wont to do, and so if Paul is the one creating the lion, they’ll begrudgingly tow that one.

      1. tow the lion

        I’m confused, do you mean ‘line up with their toes on the same line’ or ‘drag around a big cat’?

        🙂

        1. Both. You’re new here, right?

        2. Here at H&R, we have our own language. Where and why the line toeing got turned into lion towing, I know not. But I have studied the natives and mirrored their customs to fit in.

  4. Is GOP Foreign Policy Getting More Libertarian, or Is it Just Anti-Democrat Opportunism?

    Hmm. Right before I clicked this piece I was reading the comments at HotAir about the situation in Iraq. Some samples:

    Without engaging the evil subhumans of ISIS? What the f*** is this crap? The goal should be the total annihilation of ISIS terrorists and nothing less?

    We must totally annihilate ISIS terrorists now, we should not wait until tomorrow? We must kill every single one of these evil subhumans, take no prisoners, take no injured? Kill them all?

    Ron Paul and his son can go F themselves.

    The people in this country are said to be “war weary”. Well, get over it. These scum are preparing for a fight to the death. They won’t stop until either they are all dead or we are. We will be at war with these Islam-o-whackos until the end of time.

    I don’t know, Matt, you tell me.

    1. Ah yes the stalwart men of the 84th Fighting Keyboardist Division. Many a night they stand watch on the screen.

      Look, I usually hate this particular insult, but I’m going to use it here: those are some fucking chickenhawks. I don’t know a single actual soldier (and I know a few) who are chomping at the bit to go back to Iraq.

      1. “fighting keyboard division”

        I am going to have to steal that.

        1. It’s something I saw from a liberal back in 04,05,06 something like that, making fun of all the conservative blogs that were gung ho for the Iraq War. Of course a healthy percentage of right wing bloggers are veterans or close relatives of same. But the point stands.

          1. I recently deleted a bookmark to a series of well done videos that were a parody of Ken Burns’ Civil War. It made fun of Instapundit, et al, for typing away on their keyboards in favor of the war. I was going to paste the link here, but even with google’s help, I can’t find the videos and it’s driving me crazy!!!

  5. Hope and Change or something

    1. I hope everything changes. Soon.

  6. Are Congresspeople getting more libertarian…

    … or More Retarded?

    “U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy is the latest person to take the “ice bucket challenge,” part of a viral awareness campaign that has flooded Facebook, Twitter or Instagram newsfeeds this week.

    The challenge is to upload a video of someone dumping a bucket of ice water over his or her head to raise awareness for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease.”

    No reports yet on the actual epidemiological impact of ice-water-on-head to rates of effective ALS treatments.

    I am still frustrated that my campaign of “drinking & sunbathing to cure cancer” has gone nowhere.

    1. *No reports yet on the actual epidemiological impact of ice-water-on-head to rates of effective ALS treatments*

      Was it Louis CK who blasted these sorts of stupid stunts? He compared “raising awareness” of diseases to standing on the edge of a cliff and pointing down to a car full of people who had just tumbled over it, yet not doing anything to actually help them.

    2. You have to start dumping buckets when you are a little kid.
      http://siberiantimes.com/healt…..ian-style/

    3. I am still frustrated that my campaign of “drinking & sunbathing to cure cancer” has gone nowhere.

      I’m doing my part.

  7. Personally, I wouldn’t mind knowing what it means for foreign policy to be “more libertarian”. As I understand it, non-interventionism means never committing to a foreign policy action which can create a lasting political bond between your nation and any other (“entangling alliances” and all that), and also not going to war over anything but a defensive commitment (which, depending on the libertarian, might exclude anything besides a full-scale invasion from a belligerent).

    So is Obama’s foreign policy (loosely described as micromanagement of lots of issues, but without too much resource commitment in each case) more or less libertarian than Bush foreign policy (monomania on a particular issue/region with substantial resources commited to those few interests)? Is the Powell Doctrine more or less libertarian than Bush/Obama? Is realpolitik more or less libertarian than neo-conservatism? What is the “core” of non-interventionism, and how is it expressed if not in a strict binary (in which case there is no “more” or “less” libertarian, but rather simply not/perfectly libertarian)?

    1. My sense would be that a “more” libertarian foreign policy would regard the right of self-determination as fundamental to any society, where US foreign policy has tended to be more concerned with correcting other governments’ behaviors than your average libertarian would normally condone.

      1. libertarian foreign policy would regard the right of self-determination as fundamental to any society

        …really? That is the core of libertarian foreign policy?

        Why?

        Libertarians certainly don’t favor societal self-determination in the society they live in — they favor individual rights as a basis for decision making, specifically the Lockean formulation of such.

        What is the evidence that this is either the most moral or most advantageous way to approach foreign policy?

        1. Didn’t say “most moral” or “most advantageous,” just “more libertarian.”

          I say so in the sense that self-determination is the essence of libertarianism on the individual level.

          I agree that the principle does not apply to governments, who are the opposites of individuals.

          However, on the other hand, to invade and conquer a foreign country on the premise that its citizens are not free enough is misguided in the extreme, and will exactly not create more liberty in the world.

          1. If the principle of self-determination does not apply to governments, it is a red herring as far as a debate on foreign policy goes (which almost exclusively deals with how states treat with one another).

            to invade and conquer a foreign country on the premise that its citizens are not free enough is misguided in the extreme

            I agree, but that is not the only reason a country might have for either an invasion or other hostile actions (or on the flip side of the coin, for military alliance or other forms of international cooperation). It is not clear to me why the destruction or manipulation of a government (much less a foreign government) should be particularly evil from a libertarian’s point of view, unless that manipulation results in less liberty.

            1. “It is not clear to me why the destruction or manipulation of a government (much less a foreign government) should be particularly evil from a libertarian’s point of view, unless that manipulation results in less liberty.”

              Because in all but very rare circumstances doing so is virtually certain to result in less liberty for the people living under that government and less liberty for the people living under the government doing the invading / manipulating (as we’ve seen here over the last 13 years).

              Further, “entangling alliances” create a condition in which the leaders of the country commit the resources and lives of its citizens to defend the interests of another country without necessarily having the consent of all involved.

              I, for example, am obligated by virtue of the location of my birth to fund the defense of Japan, even if Japan provokes an attack against itself by behaving aggressively towards other countries.

              When in the end sum these alliances rarely serve MY interests personally, but have more to do with stabilizing international dealings for the Top Men, I start losing interest in most interventionist schemes and foreign alliances rather quickly.

              Is that a “Libertarian” stance? Not sure, but it is my stance.

              1. in all but very rare circumstances doing so is virtually certain to result in less liberty for the people living under that government and less liberty for the people living under the government doing the invading / manipulating

                Meh, that’s a viewpoint that lacks evidence IMO. Regardless of the merits to ourselves, it’s certainly the case that Germany and Japan are freer than when we first found them; ditto virtually every country we rescued from true-blue Communism (the difference between S Korea and Vietnam on the freedom scale even now is a testament to this). In your Japan example, Japan simply isn’t a bellicose nation anymore and at any rate has much of its foreign policy regulated by bilateral treaties with the US, Russia, and China. In a hypothetical scenario where an intervention could overthrow a communist Mexican or Canadian government, it would be trivial to see how such an intervention could result in more freedom for both Americans and the country they’re invading.

                If it helps demonstrate where I’m coming from, I do agree that the post-Cold War arrangement is a fucking disaster zone with nothing to recommend it. WWI was a bad war for us to get involved with, and the worst case scenario (Mitteleuropa) might have even been a plus for us as a trading partner. I would disagree that the Cold War or WWII was a mistake. I think fighting the Civil War to unify the nation and end slavery was preferable to having a slave power at our doorstep.

                1. I think fighting the Civil War to unify the nation and end slavery was preferable to having a slave power at our doorstep.

                  Or Lincoln could have let the South go, along with their congressmen. Then with his utter control of Congress (57% of House, 60% of Senate) he could have pushed through total emancipation, and then watched as every single slave in the South bolted for the border. Slavery would have been destroyed utterly, without a shot being fired. The South may have rejoined the Union, or remained independent.

                  I would disagree that the Cold War or WWII was a mistake.

                  The Cold War was a struggle against an existential threat. But there is an excellent argument that said existential threat only became so because of Lend-Lease. Without it, the USSR would never have been strong enough to beat back the Germans. They stormed Berlin, but they rode to Berlin in Studebaker trucks.

                  There are other debates about WWII, but long story short we were attacked by the Japanese and war was declared on us by the Germans. Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing.

                  1. Lincoln could have let the South go, along with their congressmen. Then with his utter control of Congress (57% of House, 60% of Senate) he could have pushed through total emancipation, and then watched as every single slave in the South bolted for the border. Slavery would have been destroyed utterly, without a shot being fired. The South may have rejoined the Union, or remained independent.

                    This is a bit fanciful, I think. The South’s slaves didn’t all do a bum rush towards the border when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation or after most of the North had already emancipated their slaves at the state level. Even after the South’s strength was depleted by 1864-65, this didn’t happen. I imagine that the South would have militarized its border before playing Pharaoh and letting its slaves go, especially not after the fuss that was made over slavery’s integral nature by the secession documents. As I understand it, most of the South’s slaves in 1860 were in the Deep South on plantations that were autarkical and well-policed. A northbound trip through the whole South to get to the Union would be easier than making the whole trip to Canada, but only marginally.

                    It would have been nice to see this scenario play out. In retrospect it doesn’t seem likely and it is a bit presentist to require Lincoln and other actors to undertake decisions in the light of events which had not yet happened (such as mass worldwide emancipation thanks to the Brit navy).

                    1. Don’t forget that prior to the war, slaves had to be returned if they were captured in free states, and the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t come until after the war started, at which point the nation was at war.

                      If was hard to get to Canada in 1859, it was all but impossible in 1861.

                      Not a foregone conclusion that slavery would have ended all by itself, but in hindsight (20/20), it seems almost certain that it would have.

                    2. The South’s slaves didn’t all do a bum rush towards the border when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation or after most of the North had already emancipated their slaves at the state level.

                      You’re utterly ignoring the Fugitive Slave Act. The North was not a safe harbor in 1860. But after a hypothetical peaceful secession, you’re looking at abolitionist cadre flooding to the Mason-Dixon line, doing everything they can to aid slaves crossing the border.

                      I imagine that the South would have militarized its border before playing Pharaoh and letting its slaves go,

                      Worked so well for East Germany. Militarized it with what? The realities of a still primarily agrarian economy argue against it.

                      A northbound trip through the whole South to get to the Union would be easier than making the whole trip to Canada, but only marginally.

                      Atlanta to Toronto is 950 miles, Atlanta to Cincy is 460. Again, the whole counterfactual I postulate is that with total Republican control of the North, Lincoln is able to strip away the Fugitive Slave Act and make the Mason Dixon Line, and not the Canadian border, the new point of freedom.

                      There’s also a feedback loop. As slaveholders see the writing on the wall, they sell their slaves while they can, which drives prices down. Soon abolitionists are able to buy slaves at auction and take them north.

                    3. What makes you think he would’ve done that? He did it as a war measure, and then applicable only to states in rebellion.

                2. “that’s a viewpoint that lacks evidence IMO. Regardless of the merits to ourselves, it’s certainly the case that Germany and Japan are freer than when we first found them”

                  Those are the rare circumstances I’m thinking of. I tend to agree with Virginian on the Civil War, and don’t think it really made either the South or North more free in the short term, but I do see where you’re coming from – I think we’re on either side of a fine line. I just personally have very little faith in our government to accomplish foreign policy objectives, no matter how just.

      2. My sense would be that a “more” libertarian foreign policy would regard the right of self-determination as fundamental to any society

        Eh, I consider governments that respect the natural rights of their citizens to be semi-legitimate, so far as the State can be legitimate.

        My non-interventionism stems more from practicality then real morality. I don’t think it’s morally wrong to slaughter these ISIS nutjobs. In fact I think it’s morally right to fill some mass graves up with their insane murderous corpses.

        But I think the US military exists to defend the USA, not the Yazidis of Iraq. That’s what they are paid for, that’s what they’re enlisted for. Not for some kind of knight errant moralistic save the world bullshit.

        Batman isn’t wrong to go beat up criminals who aren’t threatening them, he’s just insane.

        1. Good answer, thanks.

          I’m still not sure how it places non-interventionism at the level of dogma* rather than as more of a default position in the absence of evidence regarding practicality of some intervention or other, but I appreciate the reply.

          *I’m not sure if you would put it at that place for yourself, but it’s the impression I get from most libertarian foreign policy types outside of the Cato Institute

          1. The thing is, at this point interventionism is the dogma. I wouldn’t be opposed to some kind of middle of the road policy, but that’s not what we have now. We’ve a huge military, stationed in over a hundred nations. There are American tax dollars sloshing all over the world, sometimes serving actual cross purposes. That’s not even getting into the myriad other forms of soft power the US government seeks to use.

            I mean look at this ISIS thing. Every single person with power or influence is arguing over what the government should do. Very few people with real sway are pushing for restraint.

            1. We’ve a huge military, stationed in over a hundred nations. There are American tax dollars sloshing all over the world, sometimes serving actual cross purposes. That’s not even getting into the myriad other forms of soft power the US government seeks to use.

              This is true. The Cult of Do-Something is strong, and our government has nothing close to a coherent strategy following the close of the Cold War.

              I do think there is probably a better basis of evaluating a foreign policy action’s goodness than the fact that it was undertaken in the first place.

              1. The Cult of Do-Something is strong

                Exactly. The same feelgood impulses drive both interventionism abroad and silly laws at home: displaying that you care.

                But no one ever died for a seatbelt law.

              2. I believe the “Cult of Do-Something” stems mainly from the Cold War.

                previous to the cold-war, the US was largely populist-isolationist in spirit. Few people recall how upset people were about both the Spanish American War and WWI, and how there was a strong popular distaste for this sort of European-like meddling in other nation’s affairs, or fighting wars that had no territorial relation to the US

                post WWII, the wilsonian idea that our fate was intertwined with that of all nations became far more in-vogue again. Vietnam kicked it in the nuts a bit, but it recouperated after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

                Since then, the Fukyama ‘end of history’ /liberal-wilsonianism/Neoconservatism has been the dominant theme, where “Democracy should Spread” to ensure the lasting dominance of American ideas around the world.

                I think there is certainly plenty of experience now to cause people to rethink those ideas. I think the Huntington, ‘civilizational alliances/conflcits’ is more likely the de facto reality than people realize. Particularly in how the US and Europe are both contending with the long term impact of Immigration.

        2. “I don’t think it’s morally wrong to slaughter these ISIS nutjobs.”

          Agreed.

          “But I think the US military exists to defend the USA, not the Yazidis of Iraq.”

          Also agreed.

          I’m honestly torn on this one, and I tend to be as anti-intervention as anyone, but as some article around here pointed out recently, the Yazidis are hardly the only group facing difficult circumstances in the world – our wise and benevolent leaders only care about them insomuch as they want an excuse to get us involved again.

          ISIS is about the worst thing to come out of the ME at least since the Taliban, but I would really prefer to see some sort of Spanish Civil War-style voluntary commitments to help rather than more US military action, which is only likely to cause even more problems long term.

          1. the Yazidis are hardly the only group facing difficult circumstances in the world – our wise and benevolent leaders only care about them insomuch as they want an excuse to get us involved again.

            But in this case, we kinda fucked up their homeland and turned it into a vacuum for these ISIS pricks to slaughter entire populations en mass. Doubleplus reason our intervening here would make some more sense than our acting to stop a genocide elsewhere is that most of the people being targeted so far are those that played ball with us. We’ve abandoned them and now they’re being slaughtered for dealing with the Great Satan. It does make it a bit more challenging for us to find allies on the ground in any future, potentially valid, military involvements.

            1. “we kinda fucked up their homeland and turned it into a vacuum for these ISIS pricks to slaughter entire populations en mass.”

              Exactly why I’m torn. Not crazy about that “we,” though. I personally feel very little sense of responsibility.

              Our beloved government made a hellacious mess of an already-bad situation, leaving behind a blatantly partisan government whose days were numbered given the situation.

              ISIS are terrible people who largely deserve to die horrific deaths.

              My gut says our government is not the appropriate party to do it, and is probably only going to make the situation way worse.

              I understand that some of the groups getting killed helped out our government during the war, but then so did some of the groups doing the killing.

              At some point you have to stand back and say “everything I am doing here is just making it worse. Maybe I should just stop.”

              1. Like the royal “we”, man

    2. Wish i had been here for this discussion –

      This reiterates a number of my basic complaints that the so-far/as-stated notions of ‘non-interventionism’ are by themselves insufficient as a complete ‘Foreign Policy Theory’…

      …and consequently, whenever discussed, tend to devolve into various flavors of ‘qualified isolationism’ depending on who you’re talking to.

      i think you could argue Obama is “more libertarian” than Bush, mainly in his (initial) lack of interest in traditional diplomatic ties (Israel, Europe, UK, Egypt, Russia, etc), and distaste for ‘big ideas’… he seems to be open to trade in a general way without major bi-lateral negotiation… (*although his notions of ‘economic patriotism, and repatriation of foreign earnings are almost Soviet in conception)

      however – the typical way libertarians seem to approach FP issues tends to be ‘all or nothing’, and failure in any given area of non-intervention is complete failure. Obama would therefore be in the same “fail” boat.

      As for the ‘core’, the Libertarian Party articulates it as

      “”(1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and

      (2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on avoiding military intervention.””

      The devil is always in how this is applied, naturally. And as i’ve repeatedly noted – you can’t take the ‘trade with all/treaty with none’ deal very far without running into trouble.

  8. Non-interventionism in both major parties is simply a sense that the other party isn’t using the army in the most effective manner for achieving World Domination.

  9. Does the question imply that libertarians can’t be anti-Democrat opportunism?

  10. A more “libertarian foreign policy”?..where’s the money in that?

    /sarc

  11. Here’s the thing: at the end of the day I don’t really give a shit whether the GOP’s foreign policy is becoming more libertarian, or if GOP pols are just anti-Dem opportunists.

    I subscribe to Uncle Milton’s maxim that the goal isn’t to elect the right people, but to create a political environment in which the wrong people will do the right thing.

  12. Libertarianism is about diffusing power. People who seek power don’t generally do so so they can diffuse it. They seek power to wield it and increase it. So yeah. It’s all a show.

  13. Roll that beautiful bean footage.

    http://www.AnonWays.tk

    1. What have you done with RishJoMo!!

  14. Obama won by being the anti-interventionist candidate..and he did it by being a cunt hairs width more dovish then McCain.

    All Rand has to do to beat Hilary is be a cunt’s hair width more dovish hen Hilary…and she seems to be making hat pretty easy.

    Of course getting past the hawks in the republican primary could take some work.

  15. Am I the only person who could not get the video to load?

  16. The “libertarian moment” will last as long as, and no longer than, it takes conservatives to win a presidential election again.

    That’s assuming, of course, that the winner ain’t Rand Paul….

    Wait, Rand Paul is a conservative? But you keep saying he’s a libertarian? I’m confused.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.