The Candidates
Featured Archives
Continuing this delightful discussion with Alex over the place of Social Conservatism in the Republican Party, I found Alex’s entry quite interesting. This front page dialogue is kind of like the Volokh Conspiracy, minus the lawyers. Here’s my latest entry. I’m using more to save space on the front page.
Alex says I didn’t account for the defeat of several initatives. I beg to differ that I did. I wrote:
Third, money plays a key role in the politics of referendums and in most states, the Cultural Conservatives were far outspent on the ground. In some cases such as stem cell research, gambling, or abortion without parental consent, there was money to be made on the opposing side, but not on the cultural conservative side.
Money is the mother’s milk of politics and that played a role in these referenda defeats. If you’ve got the money, you can frame the issues and spread misinformation and raise doubts, thus getting to the voters. Until Cultural conservatives can produce something like the Hollywood money machine that gins up what are unlimited contributions in many states, refernda will always be hard. I think to claim that lack of money comes from popular support shows an ultimate misunderstanding of politics. Many of the folks who are pro-life don’t have a ton extra to give, many of the folks who are pro-aboriton have a ton to funnel into a state. Pretending campaign contributions represent a legitimate expression of democratic votes is silly.
I’d also point out that in Michigan, the “No” vote on Embryonic Stem Cell Research ran ahead of John McCain.
Moving on to Huckabee, Alex writes:
Huckabee isn’t a regional candidate, Adam says: hold the phones — he won Kansas! And besides, did John McCain’s scattered wins prove that moderation wasn’t viable? But it’s not even so much that Mike Huckabee lost every primary (Kansas — and, indeed, Iowa — was a caucus, which doesn’t translate into the general election) outside of the South, but that he lost such primaries by ridiculously wide margins, whereas John McCain put up a good fight in the South and Midwest.
“Caucuses don’t count.”-Hillary Clinton, February 2008.
If you look back to 2000, John McCain got crushed a lot. Only this year did McCain do respectably. In 2000: consider these results:
There are results from state’s after Ohio, but McCain had dropped out, so it’s not fair to compare. If you want to call those showings by McCain as putting up a fight. However, in a race with two major candidates, he was losing by a wide margin.
Of course, McCain did better in 2008, but this is the year that McCain won. Of course, some of the problems that plagued McCain in 2000, plagued Huckabee even worse. Unlike Romney or Establishment guys who rallied to McCain, Huckabee did not have paid operatives on the ground in many of these Super Tuesday states, he got drubbed in. What he did have was a national media and a conservative media in talk radio that was declaring the election as a McCain-Romney election and the word going out across the country was that the only way for conservatives to stop John McCain was to vote for Mitt Romney. You take a media that’s declaring him dead and 1/6 the money of Mitt Romney and it was a miracle he won what he did. By all rights, he should have been political street pavement after Super Tuesday, not the winner of several key contests across the nation.
As for Huckabee winning California, I find it completely plausible that he could do that in the primary. Survey USA showed Huckabee ahead by 4 in December. With our current insane primary schedule, the votes of people in later states is based on the “Big Mo.” The South Carolina Primary is the first in the South Contest and they’ve picked the winner of the last five contested Republican Primary contests. Huckabee came within two points of winning and had he won, McCain would have dropped out and Huckabee would have ended up the nominee. And as for winning the general, I think it’s plausible as well. The 13 Keys theory indicates in the right year, any Republican can beat any Democrat or vice versa.
The absolute silliest of the criticisms is the contention that the Federal Marriage Amendment should even be pressed, and that George W. Bush slapped social conservatives in the face by not doing so until he was in political trouble. Social conservatives: Stop talking about the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is not going to pass.
The point is not the Amendment, it’s the cynicism o making the Amendment a big deal in the General election and then using it only for political purposes. It amounted to political exploitation and people recognized that.
Beyond this, Alex begins to contradict his argument, I think.
First, he writes regarding Rhode Island:
The Rhode Island example isn’t quite fair: Carcieri was re-elected while Chafee lost, but it had nothing to do with social issues. Carcieri won, narrowly, because he was seen as a competent manager of state-level issues. George W. Bush was seen as a bumbling, incompetent fool and Chafee got the brunt of that backlash. People simply weren’t voting on social issues. If abortion and gay marriage became the dominant issues in a Rhode Island governor’s race (though I can’t imagine why they would), it strikes me as a rather dubious proposition to say that a Huckabee would beat a liberal for the governor’s mansion.
But, we were just told that the key to Republicans winning more elections was to not be socially conservative in these areas of the country. What the election of Carcieri and the defeat of Chafee both imply that Social Issues did not play a part in either election, yet social issues have been cited as the key to Republican decline in New England and other areas of the country. In addition, in Rhode Island, the state elected a Pro-Life Democratic Congressman to two terms from 1997-2001. If the abortion issue were such anathema in the Northeast, than it wouldn’t seem possible for that to happen.
But his response to me on social issues drawing minorities to the GOP was perhaps the most puzzling:
Finally, he suggests that we use social issues as a way to make inroads with minorities. Nice try, but nobody cares about social issues right now except for religious conservatives.
So, let me get this straight, the argument that has been presented here is that we need to be less socially conservative in order to attract the votes of people in other areas of the country. But nobody cares about the issues other than the people who are in our party and support it because of those issues rather than tossing us in a garbage can.
We should therefore alienate folks on the cultural right in order to make gestures that the people who we’re making the gestures to don’t actually care about? Do I mis-state the argument? I think not.
As to cultural issues, whether now is an opportune time or not, I think they can be part of a long-range strange to reach out to African Americans. I’d also throw in issues like School Choice, and where appropriate, “Enterprise Zones” as keys to capturing a greater share of the African American vote. As I’ve said before, if the Republican Party is not serious about these issues, then it’s going to be hard to get others to be serious about them.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Why do you think that McCain would have gotten out of the race had he lost South Carolina?
I never got that impression.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
God, you are prolific. I’ll try to have a reply by tomorrow.
In related news, I forgot about my Congressional candidate of the week. I need to have that up for tomorrow, too!
November 17th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Thanks Alex. Looking forward to your candidate of the week.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I’d heard McCain had made that indication. Losing South Carolina would have been a big blow for McCain with the money and time he invested there, coupled with the lost of Michigan, a state he won in 2000, I just don’t see how he could have continued on.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“But nobody cares about the issues other than the people who are in our party and support it because of those issues rather than tossing us in a garbage can..”
Exaggeration: Parts of our party care principally about the social issues. And to say “they” would all toss the Republicans in the garbage can because the candidate or party leaders don’t obsess on social issues is also a very false assumption. A big exaggeration of cause and effect. They voted mcCain who is weak on those issues…..
“We should therefore alienate folks on the cultural right in order to make gestures that the people who we’re making the gestures to don’t actually care about? Do I mis-state the argument? I think not.”
Try RADICAL social right, the ones who want to dictate culture and religious standard for everyone else. And who said to start making other meaningless gestures instead… You twist the intent and ideas and then argue with it…Are you a politician by chance?
Not convincing methodology for anyone who takes the time to ponder your piece..
November 17th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Adam is giving me a headache. Can we call this diarhea of the post?
November 17th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Shawnie, the point is not how you describe the group. It’s that according to Alex’s reasoning, we’re going to give away some part of that base to get nothing.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
“Try RADICAL social right, the ones who want to dictate culture and religious standard for everyone else”
Where is this radical social right? I don’t see social conservtives rioting because they lost an election.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Alex has said a few times now that throwing out the base (and thus, throwing out their values) isn’t an option nor is it expedient for our party to divide over something less important. I think the real point is that Americans may be pro-life or pro-choice, but only moderately so – extremism on cultural issues comes off wrong with the electorate. For this reason, the Democrats have no problems letting pro-life Democrats on the ticket, because they know that the greater presence of Democrats overall gives more voice, albeit not a blank check, to the pro-abortion position with legislators allied to it politically. Democrats can easily attract pro-life voters, not because they have stopped being a pro-choice party, rather because they don’t marginalize themselves to the extreme left. You rarely hear the Democrats pushing hard on abortion. If we have to take a lesson from the enemy, it is that being a big-tent party doesn’t weaken party doctrine, but rather gives it greater legitimacy.
What we need to do is change our approach, not our goal. Bring the pro-life argument back into the mainstream by treating it as something worthy of discussion, not one of the Ten Commandments. If not, I’m afraid social conservatism will become increasingly sidelined by the Libertarian-style “my way or the highway” approach. It is possible to become more tolerant (not converted to!) of socially moderate views while not becoming any less socially conservative, and that’s our path to success. Sideline the activist attitudes in the general elections.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Shawnie, the point is not how you describe the group. It’s that according to Alex’s reasoning, we’re going to give away some part of that base to get nothing.
I am not advocating this. I don’t know if you’ve merely gone over my posts with a fine-toothed comb before replying, but I have stated very, very explicitly on multiple occasions that I do not advocate such a thing, and it’s starting to really get on my nerves to see people reply to me as if I’ve done so.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Alex, I think that you cannot intentionally, purposefully diss social conservatives as an unimportant part of the movement whose issues are paroachial, and de-emphasize the issues without losing any votes. If you think you can, you don’t know the people you’re dissing.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Holy freakin’ mother of God, I called so-cons “vital” in my original post, not unimportant.
But the GOP cannot be held hostage by religious conservatives, insisting that we use a political party, made up of a coalition, as a vehicle to advance their agenda at the expense of everyone else’s. I’m advocating a highly practical way to advance culturally conservative goals, and you’re rejecting it in the name of purity. If you’re one of those people that would rather lose with principle than win and get sixty-five percent of what you want, so be it, but there’s not much room for that in a majority party. If you’re not in the party to win elections with broadly acceptable candidates, then maybe you really should think about packing it up.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:28 am
They’re vital because they give you votes. But having followed the movement for many years, the more you de-emphasize social issues, the more compromised you nominate, the more that vote is depressed. I think we saw that with churchgoers staying home this past cycle. Believe me, a lot of folks are on the line between going out and vote, and letting the world go to pot so the rapture comes (in theory).
I actually am one of those folks who wants to go for broke, and I think we’ll have more success if we provide a full bore conservative agenda with no pastels. I have a differnt approach and a different philosophy and I have a differnt understanding of how people work, particularly in the Religious Conservative realm than you do.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:28 am
MPC,
I disagree – I think the democrats do “push hard” on abortion. It’s always a central part of their campaigns. The only party that constantly talks about de-emphasizing the social issues is the republican party.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:33 am
They’re vital because they give you votes.
Duh.
But having followed the movement for many years, the more you de-emphasize social issues, the more compromised you nominate, the more that vote is depressed.
So it goes with any emphasized or de-emphasized issue’s supporters.
I think we saw that with churchgoers staying home this past cycle. Believe me, a lot of folks are on the line between going out and vote, and letting the world go to pot so the rapture comes (in theory).
If McCain, who supported overturning Roe v. Wade, supported Prop. 8 and was in TV ads against gay marriage in Arizona, is not good enough for so-cons, then you have must no interest whatsoever in being part of a political party.
I actually am one of those folks who wants to go for broke, and I think we’ll have more success if we provide a full bore conservative agenda with no pastels. I have a differnt approach and a different philosophy and I have a differnt understanding of how people work, particularly in the Religious Conservative realm than you do.
Gosh, if only we’d run Tom Coburn instead of John Sununu in New Hampshire! If only we’d switched Chafee for Laffey! Get real!
November 18th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Let me are, socons are our largest voting block, are our #1 source for volunteers and raise is large amounts of $, but some want them with a diminished role? Yikes!
November 18th, 2008 at 12:51 am
By changing the dialogue just a bit, I believe we can stop repelling a decent number of centrists who otherwise would be more open to the party, the gamble being that these are enough to offset the drop in social conservatives. I’m willing to say that it can and by quite a bit, partly because I believe that heavy activism on social issues is very repellent – no one that doesn’t already agree wants to have anything to do with the matter (a very closed-tent approach) – and partly because I have faith in the maturity of social conservative voters to not need lip service and activist rhetoric to realize that backing the Republicans still means backing people with their values.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:09 am
I don’t think there are centrist votes to be won, and at this point in my life, I doubt there are 100 Republican members of Congress who actually believe in the sanctity of marriage or care whether there are 500,000 abortions per year or 5,000,000. It doesn’t make a difference to them.
I’ll be many things, but what it sounds like what you want is for social conservatives to be to the Republican Party what Blacks have been to the Democrats. Count me out.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:12 am
I don’t think there are centrist votes to be won, and at this point in my life, I doubt there are 100 Republican members of Congress who actually believe in the sanctity of marriage or care whether there are 500,000 abortions per year or 5,000,000. It doesn’t make a difference to them.
I’ll be many things, but what it sounds like what you want is for social conservatives to be to the Republican Party what Blacks have been to the Democrats. Count me out.
What on Earth do you want Congress to do to keep the evil gays from defiling marriage with their evil homosexual ways? Even if you thought that Congress should indeed intervene, what on Earth could they conceivably do? Same question on abortion.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:23 am
I think that they could excercise their authority under Article 3, Section 2 to remove abortion from the Constitution to restrict the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts on both issues.
I think that in the end, it’s about manipulation and insincerity. It’s about hypocrisy and pretending to be something you’re not in order to get power, with no intention of addressing the concerns of the people whose votes you’re scamming.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:26 am
I’m saying that the GOP shouldn’t move one inch from how it currently votes thus social conservatives being intelligent voters would stay put, just parade it around triumphantly less, talk about it rationally and reservedly more. Taking the “you’re wrong, I’m right” attitude triggers defensive mechanisms in people. You don’t need to compromise beliefs, and it’ll win the respect and consideration of moderates. Nor do I do not believe in the idea that social conservatives need a crusade and an enemy to participate in political issues where their values are at stake.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:33 am
I think that they could excercise their authority under Article 3, Section 2 to remove abortion from the Constitution to restrict the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts on both issues.
You mean to remove privacy from it? Yeah, sure. The votes for that exist.
I think that in the end, it’s about manipulation and insincerity. It’s about hypocrisy and pretending to be something you’re not in order to get power, with no intention of addressing the concerns of the people whose votes you’re scamming.
Or maybe so-cons should stop being useful idiots and start thinking about what’s actually achievable.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:36 am
You don’t build political movements around appealing to moderates. “Politics is not a battle for the center. It’s a battle to define the debate. It’s a battle the right to say what the center is.”
The approach you propose was already tried by Bob Dole in 1996. Social conservatives stayed home. To get my parents to vote Republicans downticket, I had to sell them on voting Howard Phillips for President (Constitution Party.)
There is no logical reason to blame social conservatism for the fact that we’ve had two tough wars and the President couldn’t restrain spending. Only in the blogosphere will people use an election decided on the economy and blame pro-lifers for it.
This is particularly nuts after an election in 2004 where self-identified “Values Voters” handed the election to a President who was playing insincere and cynical games.
I think there are far more folks who are Cultural Conservatives who:
1) Not registered to vote.
2) Voting Democrats, because they see what colossal hypocrites Republicans are.
Then the moderates you’re looking for.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:42 am
You mean to remove privacy from it? Yeah, sure. The votes for that exist.
No, Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution allows Congress to remove cases from the Federal Court’s jurisdiction. They’ve done this several times throughout the nation’s history, and it could be done with both hot button issues.
Or maybe so-cons should stop being useful idiots and start thinking about what’s actually achievable.
Arbitrary definitions of achievable are irrelevant. Who would have thought fifteen years ago, we’d be debating same sex marriage and that three states would have laws. Achievable for the gay rights movement would have been to stop with Domestic Partnerships. But they didn’t.
I’ve seen so many “impossible” things happen in politics, that I think goals need to be set higher and worked towards more vigorously, not the opposite.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:43 am
To clarify as to how we might specifically achieve this, since I didn’t really make any attempt to that end, most of it has to do with perceptions of openness, how we talk about socially conservative topics. If all we do is state a hardline agenda over and over again, what people do see is a loyalty to that agenda above all else, what they do not see is any concern for their own viewpoints or doubts. You know how people with this attitude make you feel when discussing a topic – very quickly, we come to the conclusion that this person is detached from us and our concerns and express frustration or hold resentment, not necessarily because he hasn’t a legitimate point, but chiefly because he came across as asserting some sort of moral superiority, again, back to the “my way or the highway” problem which doesn’t work too well in a democracy of differing interests.
We must show, and thus have, genuine concern for the other side by recognizing them if we want them to understand us. Plus, we will better understand the value of our own ideology when we consider how that might be explained to a person with deep-seated concerns.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:44 am
There is no logical reason to blame social conservatism for the fact that we’ve had two tough wars and the President couldn’t restrain spending. Only in the blogosphere will people use an election decided on the economy and blame pro-lifers for it.
Indeed: you’re the one blaming pro-lifers for the outcome of this election. You said that they stayed home, and thus didn’t deliver for John McCain. Bollocks, of course. Though in a less tangible way, I blame them, because it’s thanks to them that McCain went with the horrific Sarah Palin.
This is particularly nuts after an election in 2004 where self-identified “Values Voters” handed the election to a President who was playing insincere and cynical games.
He got the partial-birth abortion ban passed. He appointed Roberts and Alito and good judges in the lower courts. He pressed for the Federal Marriage Amendment. He intervened with Congress in the Terri Schiavo nonsense. He passed the faith-based initiatives.
Quit whining.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:47 am
No, Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution allows Congress to remove cases from the Federal Court’s jurisdiction. They’ve done this several times throughout the nation’s history, and it could be done with both hot button issues.
It
is
not
going
to
happen.
Arbitrary definitions of achievable are irrelevant. Who would have thought fifteen years ago, we’d be debating same sex marriage and that three states would have laws. Achievable for the gay rights movement would have been to stop with Domestic Partnerships. But they didn’t. I’ve seen so many “impossible” things happane in politics, that I think goals need to be set higher and worked towards more vigorously, not the opposite.
Yeah, but mainstream gays didn’t press for marriage back in 1993. There were smaller issues that had to be dealt with first. Marriage is only on the table now because the gap between people who support and oppose it is closing and public acceptance of homosexuality is very high, at long last. Education was really the key for gays. So-cons can do that, too, instead of marching and trying to achieve the unachievable through Congress.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:50 am
Actually, gays were pressing for marriage in the mid-1990s.
Indeed: you’re the one blaming pro-lifers for the outcome of this election. You said that they stayed home, and thus didn’t deliver for John McCain. Bollocks, of course. Though in a less tangible way, I blame them, because it’s thanks to them that McCain went with the horrific Sarah Palin.
No, I don’t blame them. McCain failed to earn their vote and after the way the GOP did them these last few years, you can only blame the leadership. As for blaming Sarah Palin. Give me a break. No Republican with any running mate could have won, and the only time held a sustained a lead was the 2 weeks after he picked Sarah Palin.
I also find it bizarre that you say you don’t blame Social Conservatives for the loss when the whole foundation of this discussion was your suggestion that Social Conservatism is a losing proposition for Republicans. The implication here is that Social Conservatives cost Republicans the election.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:52 am
“Politics is not a battle for the center. It’s a battle to define the debate. It’s a battle the right to say what the center is.”
Right – because of the current approach, the Democrats have quite easily defined social conservatism on a national level as a hard right ideology. What I argue for is exactly what this quote gets at – to have social conservatism start acting like the center, if it wants to be defined as the center and dominate politics like the center. Opening up is a step of faith and definitely unnerving, but as long as you don’t compromise your values in the process, it is the way to go.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:56 am
I don’t think Social Conservatism has been defined by the left. In fact they’ve made a great effort to co-opt the message because it is a winning message. The Younger Generation is coming up more Pro-Life than the older, and it was many young undecideds who moved towards Prop. 8 that keyed its passage.
Plus, given that the NeoCons have actually been running the country the past 8 years, I think that the “Social Conservatism” thing is scapegoating.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:05 am
I also find it bizarre that you say you don’t blame Social Conservatives for the loss when the whole foundation of this discussion was your suggestion that Social Conservatism is a losing proposition for Republicans. The implication here is that Social Conservatives cost Republicans the election.
That actually was not my foundation. I think I’m going to need to make a clarifying post, because there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding going on here.
Plus, given that the NeoCons have actually been running the country the past 8 years, I think that the “Social Conservatism” thing is scapegoating.
You have no idea what a neocon is if you think that George W. Bush is a neocon.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:15 am
I think the people around him definitely are neocons.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:27 am
It is scapegoating to a large extent, yes. The Democrats have successfully made out social conservatives to be marginal agenda-pushers from creationism to abortion to stem-cell research in the eyes of almost everyone else, but this has only succeeded because the social conservatives basically took joy in being marginal. Part of that marginalization meant that the Democrats moved towards the established center, and accepted the consideration of pro-life viewpoints. Maybe that just goes to show that the organization of our political system for balance was pretty clever after all. Ultimately, it’s great to know that you stand strong against the merciless opposition, but this is politics, not a video game. Just like at the end of the Roman Republic, Cato and the conservative Senators may have been just in their cause, but Caesar still won. If we are always fighting society, rather than participating in it, evil has a pretty good winning streak.
Okay, I’m off to bed now, a pleasure being a part of the conversation
November 18th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Whoever won Florida was always going to win the nomination and all of them had their chance.
You might recall I was the first “Rombot” to declare that it was over after Florida.
I don’t think McCain couldn’t have won without SC – but gee Florida would have been close (I mean REAL close) if he didn’t.
But hey McCain won fair and square. Just like Huck won Iowa fair and square. Huck is every bit a 2012 playa as Sarah is.
November 18th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Stress the so-con issues where they sell. Stress other issues where they don’t. Is this really all that controversial? The Democrats seem to have figured it out. They run so-con pro-gun candidates in the South and big government nanny-state liberals everywhere else. That strategy got them seats in our turf. There is no reason Republicans can’t do the same thing once we get the brand out of the gutter. The way to do that is through federalism. The attempt to pigeonhole Democrats as communist whores that want to take guns away isn’t working for us, so we need to stop being the party that is so stridently so-con at the national level. Keep the platform, but change the image. Get it?
If the only thing Republicans are associated with is criminalizing women that get abortions and banning internet gambling and porn, and intervening in Schiavo – then we’re never again going to win statewide races in the 18 states that voted for both Kerry and Gore.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
If you want to see a winning social conservative model look to Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota.
I believe that model can be applied in nationally.
The problem isn’t social conservatism. The problem is social conservatism has been too closely linked to regional brands of Christianity. The worst thing we can do is make basic commonsense social values a sectarian issue.
I think America is becoming more open to social conservative messages. Dan Quayle was laughed at for questioning a culture that demeans families made of a father and a mother. Today even Barack Obama had to say a few words about the breakdown of the family.
Fundamentally our problems with poverty and racial disparity are only family problems.
Government policies have encouraged family breakdown and social chaos that harms children. Repealing those policies and remedying them needs to be a more important part of social conservatism.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:36 am
6 M very powerful
1. Mandate , the power granted by an electorate
2. Mandate/religion, to some Christians, an order from God
3. Mandate , supported by international politics community (world)
4. Money
5. Military
6. Male (in the super power country, female have less chance than
male to be President, i.e. Hillary lost in primaries, Palin just
rise from Alaska and she gets lot of critics/character murdered)
November 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am
#35 – Great comment!
November 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Some of those 18 states are out of reach even if we run a social Liberal. I agree we should try to winsome of those 18 states, but about half of them won’t vote GOP anymore than Alabama, Oklahoma, South Dakato, Kansas, Utah and a few other will vote Democrat.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Sorry, other should be others.