Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Trouble With The DLC
Why are Harold Ford and others from the more paternalistic and condescending quarters of the Democratic Party so keen on discrediting the rising progressive movement? What have been the consequences of their obsession with "the middle"? Most importantly, how have the Tory Democrats managed to bury the expression of deep progressive values, and what should the progressive movement do about it?
For three decades, advocates of "centrism" have used their money to monopolize the Democratic message and leave the progressive base out in the cold, not spoken to. Since its founding in 1985, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been leading this effort. How did they pull this off? Before we get into that, let's call them what they are. "Centrist" implies conciliation, moderation, compromise. It reinforces the mistaken idea that our political life falls along a neat, linear scale from left to right . That metaphor makes the center a pretty good and safe place to be. And that it certainly is not.
The plutocratic Democrats should be referred to not as centrists, but as industrial authoritarians. Their movement was born after the Nixon re-election in 1972. They blamed that landslide on Democratic Party rules changes that audaciously sought to include Americans formerly excluded from the back rooms of power. They fronted for older corporate interests - oil and gas, finance, insurance. The are really 19th-Century paternalists who would save us from ourselves by keeping us far from the plantation's Big House.
These industrial authoritarians figured out how to dominate Democratic messaging. When DLC chairman Harold Ford lost his cool in his Meet the Press encounter with Markos Moulitsas on Sunday, it was clear just how determined they are to continue their domination.
Most of the messages delivered to voters were delivered in the course of elections, not between elections. It took a good deal of money. They had money. So their movement aimed at influencing those messages, making sure no alternative visions or values were discussed. Hence, the decline in the national and state Democratic parties, and any semblance of a progressive infrastructure. Their monopoly on message was achieved at the very same time the Right was building a message machine - think tanks, radio shows, magazines, local grassroots networks - that was all about delivering message and influencing the opinion environment before election seasons ever arrived.
Their campaign model intentionally inverted the logical plan, in which you would maximize your base vote and get just enough votes from outside the base to win. The centrists wanted to win with just enough base voters and the largest possible number of votes from outside the base.
With the centrist strategy, the base got a little mail and a few GOTV phone calls, the "swing voters" got messaged.
The development of so-called "coordinated campaigns" grew out of and advanced this strategy. Coordinated campaigns were pioneered by shrewd strategists in the South. Using efficiency as an excuse, the strategists developed coordinated efforts in which candidates for statewide office would pool resources to pay for base voter programs. These programs were usually light on message. It was all "get-out-the-vote" and very little "we stand with you for these values." Aware that white voters in the region were bolting the Democrats in the wake of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, the plutocrats wanted to reassure white voters that the Democrats remained loyal to their interests. The bulk of campaign money - television ads for instance - were targeted to more affluent, white audiences.
It's not difficult to see the consequences of this strategy. Progressive base voters, especially in African-American, Latino, and other disenfranchised communities, were abandoned when it came to Democrats voicing their values. Democrats could appeal to voters in the so-called middle with technocratic policies, promises of competence, and wonkish mumbo jumbo that either: 1) avoided values altogether; 2) Or, appealed outright to the authoritarian, "strict father" side of white suburban voters. Crime is a great example. The industrial authoritarians promised super-heroic crime-fighting sprees that would even embarrass Republicans. Forget the root causes of crime, like inescapable poverty, illness, crumbling schools, the disappearance of hope.
Another consequence was the meek response to GOP voter suppression. These Democrats seldom challenged the Right's voter intimidation and suppression efforts, including the parade of police that prowled polling places in minority areas, phone banks into black precincts that gave incorrect polling locations or threatened arrest for those who might vote in the wrong place. Oh, there was the famous felon-purge of the voting rolls, used by Karl Rove in Texas in 1982. It had to be withdrawn after a non-felon, very white candidate turned up on the list.
Why so little concern for the progressive base? A growing progressive base was viewed as a threat to the industrial authoritarians for the same reason it threatened the GOP. Also, fears of being painted by Republicans as the party of Civil Rights made the industrial authoritarians exaggerate their distance from the true heart of their party.
As time went on, of course, their strategy became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It got harder and harder to boost turnout among minorities. Who could blame such voters? No one was listening to them, no one was speaking to them. If you want to have some fun, get a member of the Democratic consultant class to honestly tell you how many African American polls or focus groups they have conducted relative to their opinion research among the so-called "swing voters."
At the Rockridge Institute we look for better ways of expressing progressive values, but we also analyze various reasons for the dominance of conservative values in the political sphere. Our work is not partisan, but the partisan structures that effect expression of core democratic values must be examined. There is no doubt that a critical reason is that the industrial authoritarians used their election-cycle monopoly of message to erase messages that spring from recognition of our social responsibility for one another, for the maintenance of an empowering government that protects while allowing every citizen a chance at flourishing. There was no egalitarian messaging from Democrats because those in charge of the messaging were not egalitarians.
The rise of the progressive movement in the early years of the 21st Century challenges this monopoly. The movement is listening to progressives of all kinds and colors, and it's driving new messages of hope between and right through election cycles. MoveOn, Huffington Post, DailyKos, new think tanks like Rockridge, growing local and state progressive organizations, all of them are influence the opinion environment outside the old monopolized vehicles.
And a funny thing is happening. The core values of progressives are appealing to Americans of all kinds. It turns out that many of those so-called swing voters share these core values. They were longing to hear them expressed just as those formerly identified as the core progressive base were.
Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. If they don't, they may face the creation of truly universal health care, for instance. And then what in the world will their friends in the insurance industry do? Why, they won't have the money to keep the industrial authoritarians in power.
Glenn W. Smith is a senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
28 Comments so far
Show AllKival
First, let's drop the father/mother/nurturant metaphors because they are getting in the way. Conservatives are not inherently strict, nor are progressives inherently nurturant. All capitalists are strict and predatory in that if you are not materially wealthy you are not a success and thus you get what you deserve what you get, which is poverty. I agree, mostly, with your use of criminal because anybody that treats humans like capitalists do are behaving criminally. The question is why do people behave the way they do. The need to get to the core of the problem.
You mentioned using the strict model in some environmental issues. Recently, the city I live in passed a no smoking ordinance. The core issue was not about smoking and the harm to the environment or individuals, but about freedom of choice. I argued that I was not willing to give up my freedom of choice. I was not interested in allowing someone else to make decisions for me: the strict model. I even talked to business owners about allowing the city to make decisions on how to run their businesses. I am interested what progressive policies would be more difficult to advance by using framing layout out at the rockridge institue.
Enter Hillary Clinton--maybe the last representative of the defunct DLC?
"In the late 1980s, DLC Democrats supported aid to the Contras, applauded Reagan's "Evil Empire" rhetoric, and offered their support to those militarists calling for missile defense and rejecting arms control negotiations. While the neoliberals foresaw an end to the Cold War, the DLC still viewed the Soviet Union as an unmitigated threat."
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463
You won't want to miss reading this link!
jbs,
I understand what Smith is trying to do, and Lakoff too, but I find the framing of conservatives as "strict fathers" deeply flawed. Corporate capitalists, represented by Republicans and the DLC, are selfish predators (or one could label them criminals), not to be confused with fathers. The policies advocated by the corporate capitalists may or may not be strict, and the framing as "strict fathers" implies that the policies, however unappealing, are intended to improve the welfare of the population, and that is clearly untrue. The framing should focus on distinguishing human predators from those working for the good of the human community.
And that framing could make certain progressive policies more difficult to advance, as I think we could use some "strict father" progressive (male or female) to combat the environmental crisis we are facing.
*........we look for better ways of expressing progressive values, but we also analyze various reasons for the dominance of conservative values in the political sphere.*
It's time for the party politics crowd to step back from their fascinating game a bit and try to focus on the writing on the wall, which reads - "THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CONGRESSIONAL COMPLEX RULES."
The Democrats and Republicans are two facets of the same entity which is a recruitment agency for the MICC. There is no people's government and there are no true conservative values at play. True conservative values are Constitutional principles, such as the separation of powers.
Without a Constitutionally based government by and for the people,there is no structure for the expression of progressive values. True progressive values are those expressed in the Declaration and Preamble to the Constitution, such as the defense of personal liberty and providing for the general welfare, that is to say, economic justice.
The current US government is completely opaque and out of the control of the people. It ressembles a "national socialist" apparatus, a fascist development, a tool for the interests of corporate oligarchs. The Demopublican party system serves these interests, frustrating both progressive and conservative interests, as definied in the Constitution.
It is time for a popular revolt against the MICC. Walk away from the two-party recruitment system and get behind anti-government candidates. Dismantle the MICC by enforcing the Constitution.
Eliminate the Federal Reserve and return to the Congress the money-creating power a la Lincoln & Kennedy. Article 1, section 8. Re-vision the financial system, which is currently the source of economic injustice.
Enforce transparency and dismantle the national security state. Make the military accountable for every dime and close all overseas bases.
Eliminate the CIA.
Forget about political labels and embrace the Constitution. The MICC system is attempting to crush the true people's candidates, Kucinich, Paul, Gravel, etc.
The anti-MCC, pro-Constitution candidate is the only alternative if a true people's government is to be resusciated.
D.L.C. = Dishonestly Labeled Corporatists! And sHillary is the worst of the lot! Followed so closely by Biden that if sHillary stops short Joe will be able to lick the remains of her breakfast from his nose. Evan Bayh is another DLC puke but he dropped out early, and for that this Hoosier thanks the all-knowing, all-seeing invisable guy in the sky!
A better name for the DLC would be the Democratic LOSERship Council ! Back here in Virginia where I live, too many so-called Democratic voters are ADDICTED to supporting a phoney "centrist" despite the fact that the DLC hacks have done nothing except sellout to Wall Street and the Social Cons. Unfortunately, most poor voters who do at all vote Democrat, especially the blacks, are too addicted to the DLC out here in VA. The most sickening thing about it is the black leaders go out of their way to support a DLC hack but when a populist Democrat, black or white, male or female, tries to even run for office even on a state level, they're shot down and purposely defunded. The majority-minority districts were created and maintained by the GOP, Conservative Democrats, and Black Caucus Democrats. At first, it appeared to wipe out the sellouts in the Democratic Party but still too many of the rank and file voters in the Democratic Party are too addicted to the DLC and will usually argue against those of us who want to purge the DLC by invoking Bill Clinton as if Clinton did anything truly economical for blacks other than making them "feel good" temporarily. Nowadays, the same thing is happening whether we're talking Obama or Hillary, the only two names in the Democratic field that get any attention to most voters. Even Edwards gets a rare mention in Virginia !!
Can you spell T-r-o-j-a-n H-o-r-s-e? Beware of multi-national corporations bearing gifts!
SoDaker:
"We should be kicking Tim Johnson out just like we did Tom Daschle for angering us voters when he kissed Bush's ass in 2004 !"
We traded Daschle(D) for Thune(R). What Republican do you think we should take when we kick out Johnson?
I am deeply offended by the author's deeply flawed analogy connecting predatory capitalists to a strict father image. This nonsensical pairing of "paternalism" or "strict fathers" with criminal corporations and their useful idiots is sickening. The political debate becomes confused and misleading when it is transformed into simplistic images about fathers and mothers. Nothing could drive reasonable people away from the progressive cause better than promoting some childish image of progressives as sweet caring mothers while conservatives are those mean hateful fathers, with a belt in hand!
Martin Luther King, Jr., possibly Gandhi, or maybe Hugo Chavez could be viewed as a strict father (strict but gentle), but not some criminal predator who is trying to rob your children's future to pad his own nest. That is absurd.
Members of the DLC are politicians that were bought.
Because they are owned by the corporations, their politics is compromised and thus not reliable for the normal voter. They only deliver to the corporations, who are their owners and all other issues that voters are interested in are only secondary to them.
It is as simple as that. Don;t vote for anybody who was bought by a corporation. Vote for somebody who has only little money in his or her campaign.
"reasons for the dominance of conservative values in the political sphere"
It was all about short term strategy via triangulation on the issues the Right had poured capital into. It can not sustain itself over time due to the nature of deregulated capitalism--wealth and control will increasingly consolidate, and the question is how far can it go before the reaction starts to build momentum. The slow erosion is easier to string the most people along rather than the sudden crash, but the center eventually will not hold no matter how many diversions or bones tossed.
The 2 party system did insure a mixed system, but with the further unraveling of checks and balances it will all fall apart. Not the first time and it will always continue to pan out this way. It is the nature of the beast.
kivals: excellent observation. You think the author will get it?
Glenn W. Smith answers his own question of why do they do it. It's because they are "industrial authoritarians." That's what they believe in. They oppose the egalitarian mentality.
I think the author gets it. He is using a shorthand of sorts to frame the outlook. This is why we see Hillary projecting herself as tough to convey some misled assumption that brute force is competency. Watch her swagger and the deep booming tones she adopts and what happens? She comes across as cold and uncaring. LOL, they just don't get it. In some ways, it is time for a woman, but not a woman that models herself after the worst extremes of male blundering stupidity and bullying.
Vince Lawrence,
I hope that he gets it and that he "gets it."
smith is not talking about 'paternalism', 'mothers', or 'fathers'. he is talking about how values are expressed. the strict father model is not about men only. not all women are sweet and caring. they are just metaphors like predatory capitalists. take a look at rockridge.
To me, the DLC is Republican lite. Charlie Rose had the guy that started the DailyKos site on his show last night. He said that he stared the site 5 years ago to "get rid of the middle men", the people that censor opinion and edit what people get to see.
This is a fantastic quote:
"They are really 19th-Century paternalists who would save us from ourselves by keeping us far from the plantation's Big House."
Some very nice history on how it has come to pass that there is one dominant corporatist Party in America with two mildly divergent flavors. Interesting that it started with the Nixon landslide.
This analysis is further evidence that Gravel's idea of the national initiative for democracy might really create conditions where the inherent blue-ness of the nation as a whole can result in meaningful legislation.
RE: DLC - A CRUCIAL ISSUE FOR PROGRESSIVES; BUT THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY AN INTRODUCTION, NOT THE LAST WORD...
The DLC is as crucial an issue for progressives as the 'third party' question - to which it is connected; thus, I am glad to see it focused on, rather than simply referred to in passing. However, imo this article is incomplete:
It explains when the DLC arose, and its 'triangulating' strategy of going for the center with a centrist message.
But the article does not satisfactorily explain why a corporate-backed, monied group should have arisen to dominate the Democratic Party when it did.
The DLC has its own non-analytical explanation - 'Reagan Democrats prove the country is moving right.' This describes an event, but does not analyze its causes. But Mr. Smith's explanation is not satisfactory either:
"Why so little concern for the progressive base? A growing progressive base was viewed as a threat to the industrial authoritarians for the same reason it threatened the GOP. Also, fears of being painted by Republicans as the party of Civil Rights made the industrial authoritarians exaggerate their distance from the true heart of their party."
Note that Mr. Smith assumes that there actually was a "growing progressive base" - when, indeed, the Reagan victories that enabled the DLC point towards a weakening progressive and/or - Smith fails to consider - traditional Democratic (vs. progressive) base.
To understand the phenomenon of the DLC, it is necessary to analyze the shift right of both Democrats and Republicans more fully.
For a start, I would point to real weakenings within the Democratic coalition that have not been satisfactorily addressed by Democrats or, regrettably, many progressives One important reason for the shift right - as other posters occasionally note - has been the shift from an industrial labor to nonunion, 'pink collar' labor economy - and a consequental decline in 'countervailing' power within the traditional New Deal liberal-democratic coalition.
Harold Ford Jr. was the only democrat running for office in 2006 he failed to win election.
It should be noted that he was the only democrat that ran on a republican light platform. He tried to be on both sides of every issue, instead of running a progressive anti war candidacy like the other democrats who got elected throughout the country he moved to the right of center and lost.
The DLC is in nowhere land, they are neither for or against the war, they are neither for or against tax cuts for the rich, they are too frightened to offend anyone and cannot commit fully to progressive ideas and programs, which is why none of the candidates are attending this years meeting.
Political parties are almost always stupid, useless, and against progress of any sort.
They're just like big dumb SUVs that roll over everything in their nearly unalterable path.
All this big stuff is just stupid—big money, big oil, big cars, big government, big military.
Big is DUMB. Big will eventually collapse uder its own weight.
Small is better. The times demand small. Maneuverability is everything today. Everyone wants stability. But the world is changing very quickly.
Almost all governments are DINOSAURS.
Sic the DLC. Switch to Kucinich!
RE: WHY MIGHT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES BE AVOIDING DLC MEETING IN 2007?
SEQUOIABISON August 15th, 2007 8:42 am
"The DLC is in nowhere land...which is why none of the candidates are attending this years meeting."
But "nowhere land" is not new, it's the DLC - whose position has always been right-centrist.
If Democratic candidates are avoiding the DLC meeting now, it is more likely because their actions - like their politics - are nothing if not poll-driven -
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/08/1045/
In this case - as commondreams demonstrates - it may be presumed that polls point to the fact that explicitly DLC-identified politics such as Clinton's jeopardize the liberal-progressive vote. Especially on Iraq. So - despite being DLC to the bone - she and others soft pedal it and avoid explicit allegiance.
jbs,
In reference to the strict model with regard to environmental issues, it seems that severe restrictions on behavior may become absolutely necessary at some point if more data is developed that portrays global warming as an even more imminent threat than climatologists already believe. Corporations will not cooperate in the interests of the common good unless they are forced to by severe penalties that are consistently enforced.
I find it amusing that the stooge politicians of the corporate predators argue that it is naive to expect reputedly bad actors (usually "bad" in not giving US corporations free reign to exploit their resources) in foreign nations to behave, but they always act as if they expect corporations to behave, when all evidence points to the contrary. Of course they are not naive, but are instead mendacious and corrupt to the bone.
The DLC are just Rockefeller Republicans who joined the wrong party, thereby letting the GOP of T. Roosevelt and A. Lincoln turn into the unsavory bunch it is now.
DLC as Republican-lite, Republican heavy...what's the difference?
The point is, that for all the efforts, all the theorizing, writing, organizing, complaining, petitioning, phoning, demonstrating done by "progressive Democrats," the DLC calls the shots, and progressives working in THEIR (the DLC's) party, ultimately work for them.
I've read talk lately about "hijacking" the Democratic Party by progressives. Yeah, right! Hello! The hijacking has already taken place, and it's by THEM. Progressives are just the baggage and workhorses feeding the machine and the illusion that answers will somehow magically come out of that corrupt, encrusted entity (the DP) and save us all. Save us?? The Democratic Party as constituted can only bring us closer and closer to the precipice by enabling the right and silencing the left.
It has taken decades for any and all institutions capable of really "saving" us -- that is, educating us and/or helping us to organize a real and effective Resistance to the Repressive Authoritarian corporate takeover of America that is underway -- to be fragmented, dispersed, co-opted or destroyed: labor unions, progressive farmers (farmers at all!), schools and universities, public libraries, civic associations, the media, and (finally) any "opposition" political parties.
What is left?
Who is telling us that defending each of our issues and rights piecemeal (abortion, healthcare, voting, free speech) is NOT going to save us?
Who is saying we have to come together around a new democratic (small d) and sustainable politics?
Who is telling us that nothing will change this situation but coming together around a real, concerted effort to build a political force that looks at the Big Picture? One that takes into account root causes, and grows alternative voices, visions with sustainable plans to move AWAY from disastrous crony-decision-making towards building a conscious power base for a functional (gasp!) democracy.
You can debate all you want about the nature of the DLC. What is not worth wasting another ounce of breath on, is how the Democratic Party will restore democracy or the rule of law or people's participation in America. It won't. For all the hype and the nostalgic rhetoric (the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and blah, blah..."), it is designed to do just the opposite, and works just fine, thank you.
Those mentioning the need to support Kucinich (and we agree, he says many of the right things) only acknowledge the exception that proves the rule. He is allowed to talk, because he keeps you INSIDE -- "safely" handled, and still in the camp. Listen and send money -- until Primary Day; then he and those ideas get locked up again.
If you listen to Dennis' ideas from the mouth of a Green Party candidate or from Ralph Nader, however, all hell breaks loose! Suddenly you see the ire, venom and aggression coming from Democratic organizers that you might like to have seen used against the Bush War Machine Regime.
Sorry. No new thoughts or institutions are permitted in the DLC-dominated Democratic vision of "Solving America's Problems." All solutions are corporate -- or corporate approved. Sound familiar? The fear, the "rules"? How very RePUBlican!
What we really need is to grow NEW institutions that are aiming to go in entirely different directions politically and socially from where we are now headed. We must develop them quickly and without fear if we want to save our communities, our nation, our planet. Every day we stay on the same path is a day closer to destruction.
We need, as Bill Moyers aptly put it, a New Narrative for America. A Sustainable Narrative. A Sustainable Vision fueled with sustainable politics.
Green politics is that sustainable politics.
It does not presume a corporate-dominated party structure. It seeks participation as it aims towards equitable and sustainable solutions to life's problems.
You may not like the idea, or feel that building the Green Party is pie in the sky, but not only is that pie looking nicer and getting closer each day, the REAL pie-in-the-sky is believing that the Democratic Party by itself is going to mention, much less bring us to, a way out of this awful lawless, Constitution-shredding, murderous mess we find ourselves in.
It is because of that DLC core of the DP, this Congress refuses to act like one, and even hesitates to save our civil liberties and laws, allowing the worst of crimes to go unmentioned and unpunished in our name and on our nickel -- Iraq, Katrina, Abu Ghraib, Enron, Blackwater, signing statements, Executive Orders [??!], 911 unanswered questions -- need we point out more?
Just like Bush is not going to voluntarily give up the neocon PNAC vision and plans for the US and the world, neither is the DLC going to allow progressives access to the Democratic Party's coffers and organization. Both efforts serve corporate goals, and are corporate sponsored, funded and controlled.
Period. It is just that simple. Can you deny it?
As hard as it sounds (and as hard as it is likely to be) we must get over it and help pick up the pieces of the sorry and dangerous situation our nation finds itself -- by getting behind a clearly defined and sustainable new vision.
Want to see Congress act as if they understood the 2006 vote? Want to see them turn around and vote to stop war funding and move towards impeachment? Here is a way to wake them up and make them listen to someone other than their campaign funders. Get a big number of us to switch registration to Green Party. Watch them get the message that wasn't screened by the DLC. Find out how OUTside leverage can produce results that INside begging and cajoling cannot. To learn how, visit switch2green.org. Your registration (or affiliation) change alone will provide ample statistical evidence that Americans want a peace and impeach agenda, and that we want justice for corporate and executive crimes.
What other way says that? A Democratic registration? It says nothing. Going "Independent"? Hardly. Don't you want your Voice registered -- finally?
Registering/supporting the Green Party right now builds a Voice unafraid to say what we know needs to be heard out loud in America today: Fair elections in the US -- corporate money out of elections and politics. Stop this War (seek international diplomatic resolution). Impeach Cheney/Bush/Gonzalez. Single-payer universal healthcare for our nation. The right for labor to organize. Women's rights. This is what Americans want. This is your agenda.
Those words will never come out of the Democratic loudspeaker, no matter how much progressives wish it. We need to hear them now.
Make it heard. Make it happen. Green Party. GP.org. Warm up to that idea.
Oh, we may still find ourselves voting for some traditional-party candidates for some time to come, like it or not, as we are building and growing a clear new direction and voice, with our own candidates, our growing numbers will cause THEM to change their politics, not us. It's fine vote as your conscience dictates (that is if they let us vote or count the results). Their time is over. As it should be. We have been sold out, betrayed.
Let's make 2007 be imbued with the Spirit of 1776. Make 2007 the birth of Sustainable Politics.
RE: GOOD HISTORY OF DLC LINK
Gail August 15th, 2007 10:30 am
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463
"You won't want to miss reading this link!"
Yes - for those still reading article/thread, this is a good overview of the history of the DLC, with additional links and references. I plan to look at Baer's book.
Another article would address crucial questions raised by the very coming into existence of the DLC - its declared 'critique' of "New Democrats;" the weakening of minority and labor sectors within the Democratic coalition - but this is a fine overview - and, yes, a must-read.
Thanks.