Obama's Critics From the Left: As Wrong as His Critics From the Right
When President-elect Obama said he'd reach out to the Republicans and all Americans, he was telling the truth. Apparently some people on the left hoped he was lying. Obama's "sin" in their eyes is that he is keeping his promises.
Other than the perpetually aggrieved paranoid cranks on the far right -- FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, James Dobson etc., -- most Americans (no matter who they voted for) are just glad that someone brimming with confidence, intelligence and good will is in charge of our rescue, at last! (Watching President-elect Obama's recent press conferences, one could hear a collective sigh of relief from sea to shining sea.) Nevertheless, a few critics from the left are now demanding progressive purity from President-elect Obama that is not in keeping with his clearly stated campaign promise to bring all Americans together, and to put governance and competence ahead of ideology. In that sense they are working against the aims of his presidency.
A few progressive critics are bewailing the fact that President-elect Obama's cabinet is "too centrist," or made up of "too many former Clintonites," or that he's working with the Republicans, or that he is "too hawkish on Afghanistan." Turns out some Pharisaical progressives are into guilt by association; "Look at the bad company he's keeping!" they groan. General Jones?! Clinton?! Gates?! The sky is falling!
As someone who escaped the fever swamp of the Religious Right many years ago -- I know fundamentalism when I smell it, be it religious or secular. And the criticisms of President-elect from the left stink to high heaven of fundamentalist orthodoxy, albeit with a "progressive" twist.
Here are a few examples of the fundamentalists of the left trying to make Obama fit their political "theology:"
Chris Bowers writing in Open Left (Nov 21):
"I know everyone is obsessed with the 'team of rivals' idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated... Why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely."
Cris Hayes writing in The Nation (Nov 21):
"Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one."
William Greider in the The Nation ( Nov 25)
" A year ago, when Barack Obama said it was time to turn the page, his campaign declaration seemed to promise a fresh start for Washington. I, for one, failed to foresee Obama would turn the page backward... Obama's [cabinet] selections seem designed to sustain the failing policies of George W. Bush."
And this from Noam Chomsky, the grand old man of the left himself, on Democracy Now!. (posted on Alternet Nov 28)
"Rhetoric we know, but what are [Obama's] actions?... The first choice was the Vice President, Joe Biden, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq... The first post-election appointment was for Chief of Staff, which is a crucial appointment; determines a large part of the president's agenda. That was Rahm Emanuel... again, a longtime Washington insider. Also, one of the leading recipients in congress of funding from the financial institutions hedge funds... Obama's choices... [include] Robert Rubin and Larry Summers... among the people who are substantially responsible for the crisis. One leading economist, one of the few economists who has been right all along in predicting what's happening, Dean Baker, pointed out that selecting them is like selecting Osama Bin Laden to run the war on terror..."
What is the message from these cheerless Scrooges of the left? Joy? Celebration? The hard work of actual governance? Ba Humbug! We don't do winning! We don't do actual governance! We only do permanent opposition! Coal in everyone's stockings... again!
Before I continue please note: There is a line between opposition to say, a specific policy and undermining our new President-elect's overall efforts by casting doubt on every selection he makes (or doesn't make) for his team, let alone pitting his rhetoric against his actions in a manner that implies he is lying. This "line" matters, even if it's fluid and hard to pin down because this is a critical -- perhaps fatal -- moment in American history.
That said... There is a reason that the likes of Saints Kucinich (from the left) and Huckabee (from the right) are not the President-elect: most Americans don't want the Church Ladies of the right or the left running the country. Sunday school is one thing, the presidency another. Our country is not so much "center-right" or "center-left" as fundamentally anti-ideological. (Which, by the way, is one reason why the Sarah Palin nomination backfired so badly for McCain.)
There are two kinds of people, those that allow reality and experience to define and constantly modify their ideas and those who insist that their ideas define reality. The first kind make things work. The second type (be they right wing creationists, or progressive purists) stand on the sidelines wringing their hands and criticizing the doers for their "heresy," because doing anything in the real world always equals compromise, learning and change.
What they of the purist left want from Obama is an ideological orthodoxy of thought and action that does not actually exist, except in their imaginations. And where do they think they are living? This is America and that means that Obama will be trying to govern a country so diverse that Sarah Palin and Noam Chomsky both have a fan base here!
Moreover many of Obama's legion of young and energetic supporters have not heard of, nor do they care about, the Noam Chomskys or James Dobsons of this world. History is moving on. Obama is bigger than the pundits. He's bigger than the movements that have divided us. Believe it or not -- this is a new day.
As Thomas B. Edsall wisely noted in the Huffington Post (Nov 29) in Battle Royale: Center-Right Versus Center-Left In the Democratic Party:
"A close examination of the data suggests that the political and policy-making environment is more complex than either side [in the left/right debate within the Democratic Party] acknowledges, and that thinking in terms of a left-right dichotomy may distort policy options."
Under the surface gloss of the left wing criticism of Obama there is, I suspect, something else: the critic's psychological need to feel indispensable, not to mention superior to those of us who like, trust and will follow President-elect Obama because he strikes our gut as likable, trustworthy and deserving of loyalty based on the self-evident merits of his outstanding character. It's just not in their genes to ever be so "ordinary" as to become team players, even when their side has just won. They would rather be in permanent opposition than ever be accused of -- horrors! -- being mainstream.
Again; I know about this form of messianic mental illness all too well from my own delusional days as a leader in the fundamentalist evangelical world back in the 70s and early 80s. We were proud of being outsiders, yet resentful of not being included, and yet again weirdly and moralistically haughty because of our self-imposed outsider status.
For the fundamentalists of the left, it's no good just getting the job done, let alone doing it in a way that mirrors this diverse, complex and one-size-does-not-fit-all country we live in. From the point of view of the ideologically pure of heart, the only way to get the job done is an in-your-face crusade that humiliates former opponents. This is the don't-forgive-Lieberman "reeducation" theory of political change: it's not enough to just win then change things, you need to do so in a way that leaves anyone who ever disagreed with you punished and out in the cold, furious and plotting your downfall.
Here's the right wing ideologue's nightmare:
What if President-elect Obama keeps being truthful and doing what he said he'd do? What happened to all those on the right who have been proven wrong about things they said during the campaign, for instance the right-wing Jews who said Obama would be surrounded by anti-Semites, and then the first thing he does is make Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff? And what are the right-wing evangelicals, who said he'd be a socialist appeaser and friend to terrorists, to do now that President-elect Obama has appointed a pragmatic economic team, and persuaded Gates to stay on for a year at Defense and General Jones to advise him? And what will the anti-abortion community do when Obama does what he said he'd do and initiates programs that actually reduce abortions by lifting women, families, teens and children out of poverty?
Here's the left wing ideologue's nightmare:
President-elect Obama does not bring the emotional and psychological baggage of my boomer generation's schoolyard fights with him. He meant it when he said he doesn't see a "red" or "blue" state America but the United States of America. He's of the left but without the I-told-you-so smarminess of we boomer culture warriors. He's progressive but without the need to punish former opponents. He won handily but is not interested in putting his political foes in their "place." He actually seems to want to serve all Americans, even the "wrong" kind, even the "other."
President-elect Obama is smarter than his critics and a better and more strategic politician than his rivals. As my friend (blogger and commentator) Frank Gruber wrote to me;
"Every move he makes is confident. He is in charge and thinking ten moves ahead. If I was a rival politician, left or right, I'd feel overwhelmed -- what's he going to do next? It's even more baffling because Obama tells you in advance not only what he's going to do, but what you're going to do. Think about that debate when he told Senator Clinton he was looking forward to getting advice from her after he became president. At the time I'll bet she dismissed that as mere rhetoric. Wrong! Who is going to be Secretary of State? Or what about when he gave that speech at the beginning of the summer of 08 outlining every tactic the McCain campaign would use against him?"
As for we self-proclaimed commentators, we have a President-elect who has more intellectual firepower than all the punditry put together. How confusing! That's good for America. But that's something a whole class of professional carpers will never forgive. And so expect mirror image left/right attacks from the class of talkers to whom the glass is always half empty, because they insist that any water that might be in the glass is inferior if they didn't personally invent it!
One reason that President Obama is going to be a very successful President is precisely because his understanding of the cosmos is that his ideas (political, philosophical or theological) do not define it. That's called wisdom. That's called humility. And that is the very wisdom lacking in Obama's ideologically driven left wing critics, who never seem able to complete a paragraph with the words, "But I could be wrong." That is why their posture is already a crouch of disappointed expectation, even before President-elect Obama has been sworn in!
When President-elect Obama said that he will try to do what works, regardless of the ideological label or where a good idea comes from, he was telling the truth. Most Americans know how lucky we are to have this remarkable, pragmatic, subtle, thoughtful man for our President-elect. Most of us also know how lucky we are that our next president -- unlike our current White House occupant -- is more interested in being a good president than in proving his "side" right about everything. And most of us also know that the stakes are sky high and that now is a time to stand with our new President-elect, come hell or high water or, perhaps, because of the hell and high water we're already neck deep in.
Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback.
Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Frank, you're starting to sound like you OLD self; like you think we just elected a messiah or something. I appreciate pragmatic and would define myself as one; however, dismissing those on the left as fundamentalist cranks completely de-legitimizes what the left may actually be correct about. Chomsky isn't a lunatic; he's been right about an awful lot.
Why shouldn't a group who fought hard to win an election get something they fought for? If McCain won, the corporate media would be chanting in unison that elections have consequences. Now they're chanting that it's a center-right country. The didn't chant that when Bush got elected...
Why shouldn't they? Because that's Neocon zero-sum politics. Let's have a country where everybody wins a little. That's what democracy was always about.
I didn't suggest they get everything; I said "something".
But my daily visits to sites as varied as Progressive, Puma , AA and a nationalwoman's site that happened to have a loney thread about the election while it focused on more mundane themes and the the left wasn't working that hard.
There was so much rhetoric about how hopeful they were to see how disappointed people will be once the kool ade wore off. Just like now. No, the dems actually won without the blessing of the left. Those who joined were ridiculed by those who knew better.
Pumas, progressives and the right were interchangable reads.
Great column. I agree. I'm a proud supporter of President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden.
I don't have a problem with my pick at all. He had better get on the Constitutional stick and appoint an independent committee on Bush's crimes, though. We're going forward, WITH OR WITHOUT HIM. Now, if he doesn't want to look like a total fool, with no civic responsibility, then I strongly advise him to get out in front. Won't look too good to the world, for us to succeed, without his leadership on this. His choice. You think Jews were persistent in chasing Nazi war criminals all over the world (to this day, even), you haven't seen NOTHING yet :)
Maybe you missed this part of the post:
"There are two kinds of people, those that allow reality and experience to define and constantly modify their ideas and those who insist that their ideas define reality. The first kind make things work. The second type (be they right wing creationists, or progressive purists) stand on the sidelines wringing their hands and criticizing the doers for their "heresy," because doing anything in the real world always equals compromise, learning and change."
Yes, Bush is a criminal and ran an administration likely guilty of many impeachable crimes. But the REALITY is that the witch hunt you are calling for would be seen as nothing more than vindictive pettiness and would be the ONLY thing that could actually revive the republican party.
There is an enormous swath of the public that is not interested in rehashing the horror of the last eight years- especially if it distracts from moving the country forward.
You're ridiculous. Watch the results of "hand wringing". There's many of us and we work everyday to get this done. You are merely a static bystander who has no idea of the power of activism. You will see, my naive one. You will see.
"But the REALITY is that the witch hunt you are calling for would be seen as nothing more than vindictive pettiness.
I disagree. I think that most Americans would see it as Justice and a return to the rule of law. The example must be set at the top if we expect others to follow the rules that prevent the entire breakdown of society.
and how to propose to move forward with or without him. Should we get pitchforks and start walking into Crawford, Tx?
God, you are an arrogant tool...
I jumped onboard a year ago after reading "Audacity of Hope." It was clear predetermined ideologies and fringe interests did not impress this man. He is pragmatic and realistic about his goals and the steps needed to attain them. That should have become apparent in many of his stances before the election that irked the left ... two that come to mind immediately are support for faith-based initiatives (done right, it is hard to deny churches are the bricks and mortar on every corner needed to most quickly and efficiently identify and aid the needy) and limited offshore drilling (a short-term concession in exchange for votes that greatly enhance R&D in new technologies).
With Obama, it's not left and right, it's right and wrong. His pragmatism got my vote. The world is real, folks. Waste away in your fringe sociological movements, if you dare.
By saying "President-elect Obama does not bring the emotional and psychological baggage of my boomer generation's schoolyard fights with him.", you seem to imply that concerns about the illegitimacy of his elections and blatant crimes committed by Bush and his collaborators while in office are pettinees on the Left's behalf.
Where have you been living, Frank? If we make it through to the inauguration, and if we can reverse the unconscienable rules Bush continues to propogate against workers and the environment, and if we survive this well-orchestrated pilferage of our Treasury, ... then we can talk about an accomodation of the Right. Until we see the full-team assembled and on the field, and see some of them in synch with our philosophies, some of us will reserve judgement.
We are not assembling a debate club to meet daily in the White House. If you hve not noticed we are in dire straits. Who WILL argue the Progressive viewpoint in this "team of rivals"?
Obama was elected and financed by many political segments, not the least of which were Progressives. Continuing down the same road but with a happy face will not save our Nation.
Hear hear!
Democratic centrists have become just as bad with their false equivalencies as the right-wing. I keep on hearing how the "left" is just as bad as the "right" when it comes to ideological rigidity, but with nary an example - as if stridency and incorrectness were synonymous.
Please enlighten me, where was the left wrong exactly? On the Iraq war? On derregulation? On tax-cuts? On the unfunded mandate of NCLB? On the environment and global warming?
Please let us on the left know where we were wrong so we can decide how best to compromise with those who believe that the Earth was formed 5,000 years ago by a God that doesn't want us to eat shellfish.
Well said, STP. When they needed our votes and our money to win the election, they dared not dismiss liberals and progressives demanding change. Now it seems their favorite sport. Or are they just trying to appease Limbaugh?
How about you actually wait until they start actually doing something before condemning the administration.
Most people just want qualified, talented, experienced folks in there with Obama calling the shots. Most people don't honestly care what the ideological backgrounds are as long as they help deliver the policies he ran on.
They aren't dismissing anyone but the folks who can't see past their own litmus test for hiring someone.
Right on. Yes We Can. We did it against all odds and we'll do it again! :)
If you honestly want one example, take the Kucinich impeachment articles.
Now, I think all but the most biased eyes would look at this administration as a complete failure, and likely guilty of many impeachable offenses.
However, those who were screaming for impeachment, with mere months left in his term, were blinded by ideology and oblivious to reality. It wasn't going to happen. Even pursuing it would ensure gridlock, bitter cycles of retribution, and no chance for healing the country and moving it forward.
It doesn't matter if the left was actually "correct" in their assessment of Bush's litany of impeachable offenses. What matters is putting payback ahead of governance. What matters is sacrificing future progress for an ideological score. What matters is worrying about "winning" more than setting the right direction for the future.
In that regard, I see the same rigidity and focus on ideology that I see on the right.
A wound cannot heal until all the pus is gone!
The "centrist" position is to always find a compromise with the fox on the status of the henhouse.
Eloquently expressed. on both of your posts, without question!
You know, I have always hated the extreme right, with their "Holier than thou" attitude.
But those of you on the extreme left appear to have an "More enlightened than thou" attitude.
It is equally obnoxious. And equally wrong.
Hear Hear Jim.
The worst part is that none of it is based on actual policies, or what they have done (because they aren't even in charge of anything yet)-- jut the perceived "leanings" of his cabinet announcements.
I honestly don't understand why supporters and critics alike cannot simply wait until there is some track record to examine BEFORE passing judgment on his administration.
Put it this way, do we want people in charge who actually DELIVER the change we were promised, or do we simply want folks who know the secret liberal handshake?
Yes it is. And us on the left will steer this ponderous boat of the Democratic Party. We always do. The rest are just dead weight, screeching bipartisanship and kuumbaya while the right sharpen their knives. No with us, they don't. Real Democrats are warriors too.
Eliminate the centrists or moderates and watch how effective any government becomes. While PE BHO won by a clear majority there are millions of people who voted against him. Now you want to marginalize those voters and moderate left voters who voted for PE BHO. That is not Democracy. That is not an effective way to institute permanent change. That is a way to energize opposition and push away supporters. I am part of a generation that fought for radical changes and accomplished much in our efforts in the civil rights movement, womens movement and the anti-war movement to name 3 big agendas. The problem is that the methodology and the strong push to the left created a BACKLASH movement called the Religious Right. So we have a military that doesn't trust Dems and nearly half the population that is irrationally anti-liberal and anti-socialism and anti-anti-war. {They are real people too}
AS a PROUD LIBERAL,I have learned from sad experience that you have to have consensus and cooperation or you only end up with ugly rhetoric and a continually fluxing political environment. So I am all for trying out PE BHOs methodology after the last 28 years of backlash and back sliding.
couldn't agree with you more, Frank. nice post.
I suggest the critics on the left (and believe me, I'm on the left) re-read Dreams From My Father and The Audacity Of Hope. Barack Obama has been utterly consistent in his way of looking at the world - and in his way of operating - ever since he was a young man. And it's exactly this vision, consistency and sense of purpose that enabled him to win the election (and a lack of which was John McCain's failing).
You know I don't think the criticism coming from the Left is necessarily about the choices Obama is making, it's more about what liberal/pr
On the other hand, there was a man who felt that he had supported a Presidential campaign, and thought that he helped get the President elected, and felt that he was owed something! Maybe just an ambassadorship, or something along those lines. His name was Charles J. Guiteau, and he shot and killed President James Garfield after Garfield (rightly) refused to offer him a government position!
I don't understand your point.
Things are moving very fast, and we're now in the post-boosterism moment. The cheerleading is already passe and redundant--the guy WON, for crying out loud. The players who'll make the first moves are being assembled, and serious minds are looking at Obama's choices with a critical eye. As they should. As we all should.
I haven't seen it written, but I think we need to remember that, like many small companies, Obama's campaign was a fundamentally totalitarian operation that was run by a small clutch of people who were accountable only to its head. Obama made the final decisions, including promptly excising those who'd violated his tenets. Incredibly successful, impressively efficient, but not democratic, and not a model for how the governmenet or the country should be run. Thankfully, Obama knows this very well. Some of us, it seems, not so much.
Democracy is noisy and messy. It is definitely not "drama free." Trying to hush the voices pointing out the weaknesses in Obama's decisions works against the collectivism of opinion he advocated. How can we know how the country feels unless we can all speak? Nothing threatens the dream of united states more than demonizing protest, deactivating the barely energized electorate, and dimming the promise of solidarity of purpose honored in spite of, and in the face, of respectful disagreement.
"I can't see the forest with all these damn trees in the way!"
You are msising the point, and royally. Democracy and government does work precisely like that, we elect our leaders and they do what they believe is right. IF wee choose poorly we get someone who does what they believe is right for them (Bush). If we choose wisely we get someone who does what they believe is best for us (Obama).
President Elect Obama was always intending to pick a team of people who have views different than his own. He was always planning on tapping the last democratic leaders and beauracrats to hold power... the Clinton Administration. HOw can you tell? Go back and look at p[retty much everything he said, did, and people he gathered. I said it before, Senator Obama beat team Clinton with their own playbook.
An Obama Administration will be less secretive, more open, more progressive than potentially any Administration we've ever had. It will also be tightly controlled, as it must to be effective.
But they are not criticizing based on a track record- they are setting up a litmus test for the new hires, and that is wrong.
Get the best person in the office. Right now, with as much turmoil as we are in, that means someone who has some experience.
If the person is not qualified- then raise a storm of protest. But, simply because they worked in the only Democratic administration they could have in the past 16 years does NOT disqualify them. Yet, for most of the picks that the left is panning, this is the only black mark given.
Obama's challenges should not come from the left. Bush will have left behind a catastrophically crippled government and economy to match. Obama needs a breadth of support to affect change.
As a far left progressive and survivor of the Culture Wars I have my opinions about the first 100 days:
1. Out of Iraq
2. Neo New Deal (infrastructure and green jobs) Programs
3. Universal health insurance
4. Prosecute the Bush-Cheney Crime Family
5. End the War on Drugs
6. Restructure the tax code (soak the rich)
7. Close Gitmo
8. Etc.
I don't think all can be done at once, but wouldn't a good start be nice?
1. He'll not doubt get the wheels in motion, but every military analyst agrees a safe withdrawal will take at least a year.
2. Appears to be in the works.
3. That's going to take a while. Foolish to attempt to pass it in 100 days. Better to make it a 1- or 2-year plan.
4. Ain't gonna happen.
5. Don't think you'll see that happen, either. But maybe we'll see more sensible policies.
6. I don't think the rich will be, or should be, "soaked," but I think you will see a fairer tax code.
7. That seems to be one of his top priorities. As it should be.
Regarding points 3 and 6, we need to get back to a progressive tax system sans loopholes. In addressing health care we must change the financing system, i.e., base it on income taxes. In this time of impending deflationary collapse there would be huge economic benefits from taking the cost of health care off the back of corporate America and the states (Medicaid/SCHIP). Moreover, the payroll tax (Social Security and Medicare) is a crippling regressive tax on low/middle income workers that amounts to the highest tax paid by 75% of Americans. I would give these folks a huge break by eliminating the payroll tax. How then to pay for all this? In the short run with fiat money hot off the press. In the longer run (once the economy starts to recover) by inflicting the pain of taxation disproportionally on those who benefit the most from the common welfare--rich folks. In the distant future when Republican "borrow and spend" folly has been banished we shall all have to do our best to pay down the hideous national debt that has resulted from 30 years of Reaganomics.
Those who have successful, happy lives are living it in the center. Leaning to the left or the right does not work. We see it everyday in our relationships . When things go well it is because we meet in the middle. The same thing applies to the Government. We simply must move beyond expecting to have things our own way in this country. we have to put it all on the table and find solutions that everyone can accept. That means giving and taking and not being stubborn and insistent that we get what we want and the others be damned.
I am basically in agreement -- as the Buddha said, neither too tight, nor too loose -- seek the middle way. That having been said, the "middle" in this country has shifted so far right, that today, some policies of Republican presidents like Nixon and Eisenhower, would be considered so liberal that they'd be called "far left" now. Sometimes I think a better idea than "centrist" is "wholistic" -- seeing the big picture, and pragmatically choosing, from the left, or right, what works in the given situation. Personally, I think that's what the Buddha would do. (What would Jesus do? No question, he'd be on the far left. ;-)
Fantastic post ! ! I give this 5 *'s.
I'm referencing this article in a posting on a local paper's "letters" page.
Spot-on there, truegreen. What was that about "Democrats seek to govern,
Republicans seek to rule"?
Outstanding post. Thank you for pointing out that the right does not have the market on fundamentalist thinking cornered. Fundamentalisms in ALL of its guises is unattractive, smug, self-righteous and smacks of Phariseeism. There are white-washed sepluchres on the left as well as the right.
What I love about Obama is that he is post-culture wars. I resent the culture warriors as much on the left as I do on the right, for trying to beat this dead horse into the ground whilst Rome burns! :-) (How's that for mixed metaphors? but you know what I mean.)
TG week we visited with our rural-based conservative relations, deep in the heart of Republican country.
Needless to say they weren't pleased Obama won, but weren't entirely upset McCain lost. They said they'd actually become disenfranchised with Republicans, too, after watching them "steal all the money". Now, what was actually meant by that, we never quite got to, but if that translates into a right-wing grassroots demand for smart government that works, great. Obama would be wise to provide that.
Toward those ends, the Obama administration ought to consider bringing back some of the now-fired government watchdogs. First one on my list would be Pentagon Whistleblower Bunnatine Hayes Greenhouse. Y'all might remember her---she was once the top-ranked civilian employee at the Pentagon, and the Corps of Engineers civilian contract auditor who was fired by the Bush Administration for writing in indelible ink across the face of the final document draft, her objections to a five-year no-bid "emergency" Iraq military "rebuilding" contract with Halliburton.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
