Intel
Field briefings on conduct, the standard, and the system that keeps producing officials who fall short of it. Plain argument, the same fixed bar, conduct not party. Drawn from the author's own writing, including Beneath the Platform: What Holds Up a Leader, and his companion essays on One America.
Hover to open the file · click to read the briefing
The Median Is Failing by Design
Why a passing grade on this scorecard is rare, and why that is exactly the point.
The first thing people notice about the Civic Leader Scorecard is that almost no one passes. Out of every sitting official graded against the oath, a small fraction clear the support line. The instinct is to assume the scale is broken. It is not. The scale is doing precisely what it was built to do.
Every other grade you have ever been handed was scored on a curve. A test where the class average becomes a C. A workplace review where “meets expectations” is defined by what your coworkers happen to be doing. The curve has one fatal property: when the whole room is failing, failure starts to look like the middle, and the middle starts to look like success. Grade politicians on a curve and you have built a machine that launders the decline of the entire class into a passing mark for each member of it.
This scorecard refuses the curve. The bar is not the average officeholder. The bar is the seat.
The seat asks for a fixed thing: conduct that honors the oath, the public trust, and the equal worth of the people governed, whether or not the political reward runs the other way. That standard does not rise when officials are exceptional and it does not fall when they are not. It sits where the office sets it. And measured against that fixed line, the median politician is, demonstrably, below it. Not because the line is cruel, but because the median politician has learned that the line is not enforced.
So a passing grade is rare. It should be. A standard that most people clear is not a standard; it is a description of the average. We already have those, one for each party, and they are exactly the problem.
The two objections people reach for are the same two the doctrine was written to answer.
The first is, it has been done before. Of course it has. That is not a defense. A practice being old does not make it honorable; it makes it entrenched. “It has been done before” is an indictment that compounds rather than excuses, because every repetition is one more person who saw the line and chose to step over it.
The second is, the other side does it too. Almost always true, and almost always beside the point. “The other side does it” is not a defense either. It is a confession that the speaker abandoned the standard the moment the other side did, which means they never held the standard at all. They held a grudge.
This is why the median fails by design. The design is the whole argument. If the bar moved to accommodate the people being measured, it would measure nothing. The value of a fixed standard is that it is uncomfortable, that it lands on your own side as readily as the other, that it does not care who is winning. The discomfort is the proof that the instrument is working.
You are not asked to take the verdict on faith. Every measure is published. Every score cites a documented act with a primary source. The weighting is fixed before anyone is graded, and a hostile reviewer can take the same library and check the math. The standard never moves; only the evidence does.
So when you pull up a name and find a number lower than you expected, sit with the discomfort for a moment before you blame the scale. The scale is the one thing in the room that is not adjusting itself to make the people in power look better than they are.
The bar does not move. That is not the flaw in the scorecard. It is the entire point of it.
How to Spot a Real Leader: The Four-Pillar Test
Before the next campaign tells you who to follow, run the test yourself.
We spend a great deal of energy arguing about whether a politician is right and almost none asking whether they are worth following. These are different questions. A person can vote the way you prefer and still be someone you would never trust with your money, your children, or the truth. The scorecard grades conduct in the seat. This is the companion question, the one a citizen has to answer before handing anyone the seat at all: is this person worthy to be followed?
There is a test for it, and it does not require you to know a single policy position. It has four pillars.
One: trust and loyalty, measured by sacrifice. Loyalty is cheap when it costs nothing. The real measure is what a person gives up for the people they claim to serve. Did they ever take a position that cost them politically because it was right? Did they tell their own side something it did not want to hear? A leader who has never paid for their principles has not shown you they have any. They have shown you they have preferences that happen to be popular.
Two: aspiration and integrity, measured by who they are becoming. Watch the trajectory, not the slogan. Is this a person growing toward something, taking responsibility, getting more honest under pressure? Or are they getting smaller, more defensive, more willing to say whatever the moment rewards? Integrity is not a fixed possession. It is a direction. You can see which way someone is pointed if you watch them lose.
Three: protection and influence, measured by how they treat the people below them. Power reveals character because power removes the consequences that used to enforce it. Watch how a person uses authority over those who cannot fight back, staff, opponents, ordinary citizens, the half of the country that did not vote for them. A leader protects people who cannot protect themselves. A boss extracts from them. The office does not change which one you are. It only stops hiding it.
Four: legacy and virtue, measured across generations. Ask the longest question: will the country be better in twenty years because this person held power, or only louder now? Some leaders spend the future to win the present, mortgaging trust, institutions, and truth for a cycle of advantage. The pillar asks whether they are building something they will not live to see, or burning something they did not build.
Run the four pillars on anyone and you will notice what is missing from the test. There is no question about party. No question about ideology. No question about whether they are on your side. Those are the questions the campaigns want you asking, because those are the questions their machinery is built to win. The four pillars ask something the machinery cannot manufacture: sacrifice, growth, the treatment of the powerless, and the long horizon.
This matters because leadership is not something a leader has. It is something followers grant. No one is a leader alone in a room. The platform is built by the people who agree to stand on it, which means the character of our leaders is, finally, a verdict on the judgment of the led. We get the leaders we are willing to follow. The four-pillar test is how you take responsibility for that choice before you make it, instead of explaining it away after.
So before the next ad tells you who the good guy is, run the test yourself. Sacrifice. Becoming. Protection. Legacy. If a candidate cannot clear four plain human questions that have nothing to do with party, no amount of agreeing with them on policy will make them worth following. It will only make you complicit in where they take you.
The Independent Voter and the Gate Both Parties Built
The largest bloc in America is the one the system is designed to ignore.
More Americans call themselves independents than call themselves Republicans or Democrats. By the usual logic of democracy, the largest group should hold the most power. It holds the least. That inversion is not an accident, and it is not the fault of the independents. It is the designed output of a system run by the only two organizations with an interest in keeping it that way.
Start with a fact that surprises people: the two parties are not in the Constitution. They are private organizations. The framers did not establish them, did not mention them, and largely dreaded them. Everything those organizations now control, the primaries, the debate stage, the ballot lines, the rules of access, they acquired over time and now defend as if it were the natural order. It is not the natural order. It is a gate, and they built it.
A private organization is entitled to its own gate. A political party choosing its own nominee through its own members is the party exercising a real right, and that right deserves respect. The problem is not that the parties have a clubhouse. The problem is that the clubhouse has been allowed to control the conditions of a public election, and to treat the independent, the largest bloc in the country, as a trespasser at a contest that is supposed to belong to all of us.
Here is how the gate works on an independent. In many states you cannot vote in the primary that actually decides the race unless you join one of the two clubs. The general election arrives with two names already chosen by the most partisan slice of each side, and you are told to pick the lesser evil, again, as if that were freedom rather than a menu written by other people. Third options are kept off the ballot by access rules the two parties wrote. The debate stage is controlled by a structure the two parties effectively run. At every step, the choice you are offered has already been narrowed by the two organizations with the most to lose from real competition.
The result is a politics optimized for the wrong audience. To win a primary, a candidate plays to the base, the most committed, most partisan, most reliably angry voters in the party. The independent, who tends to want competence over tribe and is willing to reward the other side for doing something right, is exactly the voter the primary system teaches candidates to ignore. So they ignore them. Not out of malice. Out of math.
None of this is a reason to despair, and it is not a reason to demand that the parties throw open their private nominations to outsiders, which would only let each side sabotage the other and would trample a right the parties legitimately hold. The clubhouse belongs to the club. But the system, the public machinery of how a country chooses who governs it, belongs to the people, not to two private organizations that captured it.
That distinction is the whole game. You do not fix this by writing more rules inside their framework, where they make the rules. You fix it by changing the framework so fundamentally that the country is no longer playing the election inside their clubhouse. Open the general election so the largest bloc is not forced to register with a club to be heard. Grow the people’s house so a seat is worth less to a faction and more to a constituency. Take back the public parts, the ballot, the stage, the access, while leaving the parties their private parts. Those are not adjustments to the gate. They are ways around it.
The independent voter is not apathetic and is not confused. The independent voter is the rational response to being handed a choice that two organizations narrowed before it ever reached the ballot. The fix is not to convert independents into better partisans. It is to build a system that finally has to compete for them.
We Don't Have a Leadership Crisis. We Have a Followership Crisis.
If we want better leaders, we first have to become better followers.
We talk endlessly about the crisis in our leadership. The dishonesty, the cruelty, the self-dealing, the contempt for the people they are supposed to serve. We are right to talk about it. But we are talking about the symptom and calling it the disease.
No one is a leader alone in a room. Leadership is not a trait a person carries in their pocket; it is something granted by the people who agree to follow. A platform is built by the crowd that chooses to stand on it. Which means every leader we complain about is, finally, a verdict on us, on what we were willing to elevate, excuse, and re-elect. We do not have a leadership crisis. We have a followership crisis. We have forgotten how to choose who to follow.
That is not a comfortable sentence, and it is not meant to be. It is also the only one that contains any hope, because it is the only part of the problem we actually control. You cannot will a better politician into existence. You cannot legislate character into someone who has none. The one lever in your hand is consent: who you are willing to lift onto the platform in the first place. Change that, and everything downstream of it changes. Refuse to change it, and no reform will save you, because the system will keep handing the worst among us exactly what we keep rewarding.
For most of living memory, we outsourced the choice. We let two parties tell us who the acceptable options were, and we let the team we were born into or drifted toward tell us which of those options to defend. The question stopped being is this person worthy to be followed and became is this person on my side. Those are not the same question. They are barely related. A person can vote the way you prefer on every issue and still be someone you would not trust with your reputation, your children, or the truth.
Becoming a better follower means taking the choice back and asking the older, harder questions before you grant anyone your loyalty. Would I follow this person into uncertainty? Would I want to become more like them? Would I trust them near my children? Would I be proud if my child grew up to be just like them? None of those questions has anything to do with party. All of them have everything to do with whether the person in front of you deserves the power you are about to hand them.
This is the entire premise beneath this scorecard. The grades measure whether a politician’s documented conduct met the standard the seat requires. But the grades are not the point. The point is the choice that comes after you read them, the choice that has always belonged to the citizen and to no one else. The instrument exists to make that choice harder to dodge, by putting the conduct in front of you, sourced and plain, before the campaigns get to tell you who the good guy is.
If we want better leaders, we have to demand more from the people we elevate, which means demanding more of ourselves as the ones doing the elevating. The bar for them does not move. Neither should the bar for us. It begins beneath the platform, with the people who decide what they are willing to hold up.
Would I Be Proud If My Child Grew Up to Be Just Like Them?
Four questions that cut through every campaign, because none of them are about party.
Strip away the ads, the slogans, the party color, and the question of who is winning, and you are left with the only test of a leader that has ever really mattered. It is not a policy test. It is a parent’s test, and it has four questions.
Would I follow this person into uncertainty or danger? Would I want to become more like them? Would I trust them to influence my child? Would I be proud if my child grew up to be just like them?
These are not academic questions. They are the questions you ask, almost without noticing, about anyone you would actually let near your life. We use them on a babysitter, a business partner, a coach, a friend. We apply them ruthlessly to the people we know and then suspend them entirely for the people with the most power over our lives. Somewhere along the way we decided that a politician should be held to a lower standard of character than a kindergarten teacher. That inversion is the disease.
Notice what the four questions have in common: not one of them mentions ideology. You can agree with a person on every issue and still answer no to all four. You can disagree with a person on half their platform and answer yes. That is the tell. The questions are not measuring whether someone is on your side. They are measuring whether someone is worth becoming, worth trusting, worth handing the next generation as an example. Those are moral questions, and morality does not run along party lines.
Try it on a real name. Picture the politician you defend most reflexively, the one whose flaws you have learned to explain away because the other option is worse. Now ask the fourth question honestly. If your child grew up to speak the way that person speaks, to treat opponents the way that person treats them, to handle money and power and the truth the way that person handles them, would you be proud? Not relieved that they were on the right team. Proud.
Most of us flinch at that question, and the flinch is the answer. We have trained ourselves to accept in our leaders precisely the conduct we would correct in a seven-year-old, because we have been taught that the conduct is the price of winning. It is not the price of winning. It is the cost of our own lowered standards, paid forward to a generation that is watching what we reward and learning that this is what power looks like.
This is why the scorecard grades conduct and refuses to grade policy. Policy is contested ground; reasonable citizens disagree about taxes and borders and law in good faith. Character is fixed ground. Whether a person lied, whether they treated the powerless with contempt, whether they used the office to enrich themselves, these are not matters of opinion. They are matters of record. And they are exactly the things the four questions are asking about.
So before the next campaign tells you who to be afraid of, run the parent’s test on the person they want you to follow instead. Four questions. None about party. If a candidate cannot survive the question you would ask about anyone near your child, no amount of agreeing with them will make them worth the platform. It will only make you the one who handed it over.
Why Outrage Killed the Argument
A politics that runs on contempt cannot reason, because contempt was never trying to.
There was a time when a political disagreement was an argument, two people who wanted different things, making their case, each trying to persuade. An argument assumes the other person is reachable. It assumes they have reasons, that those reasons could be answered, and that at the end someone might actually change their mind. Argument is a form of respect. It treats the opponent as a citizen with a working mind.
Outrage is the opposite. Outrage does not try to persuade because it has already concluded there is no one on the other side worth persuading, only an enemy to be defeated and an audience to be inflamed. It is not a failure of argument. It is the deliberate replacement of argument with something that works better for the people selling it.
And it does work better, for them. Outrage is more profitable than persuasion. It travels faster, holds attention longer, and raises money more reliably. A measured case for a policy will never out-perform a clip of someone calling the other side vermin, traitors, animals, a threat to your children. The incentives of modern media and modern campaigns both point the same direction: away from the argument, toward the contempt. So the people who master contempt rise, and the people who still try to reason get drowned out, and we mistake the loudest contempt for the strongest conviction.
The cost is not just unpleasant tone. When you reframe an opponent as an enemy who does not belong, you have not won the argument; you have abolished it. You cannot reason with someone you have defined as illegitimate. You can only defeat them, and a country where each half has decided the other half is the enemy is a country that has lost the only mechanism free people have for settling their differences without force. The first thing a demagogue takes from you is not your rights. It is the argument, the belief that the other side is even worth talking to.
This is why the scorecard treats discourse as conduct, not as style. There is a clear line, and it is not about tone or toughness. You can be blistering, sarcastic, relentless in attacking an opponent’s ideas and still be treating them as a fellow citizen with bad arguments. The line is crossed the moment the target stops being the idea and becomes the person’s standing as a member of the country, the moment the message is no longer you are wrong but you do not belong. That move, casting fellow citizens as enemies who have no rightful place, is the corrosive force a constitutional oath exists to resist, and it is graded the same on every side, because it does the same damage no matter who deploys it.
None of this is a plea for fake civility. Forced politeness is its own dishonesty, and some things deserve real anger. The point is narrower and harder: you can be angry and still be arguing, or you can be angry and trying to end the argument. Only one of those is compatible with self-government. A citizen’s job is to learn the difference, and to stop rewarding the people who profit from blurring it.
Outrage feels like strength. It is usually the opposite, the tell of someone who would rather inflame you than convince you, because they suspect that if it came down to the actual argument, they would lose.
Local Power: Where the Country Actually Changes
The offices that touch your life the most are the ones you were taught to ignore.
Ask a hundred Americans who their district attorney is. Most cannot tell you. Ask them who their state legislator is, the person who actually writes the laws on their schools, their roads, their police, their property, and you will get the same blank look. Then ask them about the president, and they will talk for an hour. We have been trained to pour all of our political attention into the one office furthest from our daily lives and almost none into the dozens of offices that govern it.
This is exactly backwards, and it is not an accident. National politics is a spectacle, and spectacle is where the money and the cameras are. But the decisions that touch you most directly, whether the police in your town are accountable, what your kids are taught, how your local prosecutor uses or abuses discretion, what your property is worth, are made by people whose names you have never learned, in elections most of your neighbors skip. Turnout for a presidential race runs high. Turnout for the district attorney, the school board, the state house seat, often runs in the low teens. Which means those offices, the ones with their hands closest to your life, are decided by the smallest, most motivated, most easily organized slice of the public. Power flows to wherever attention is absent.
The good news in that sentence is enormous. A national election is moved by hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of millions of votes; your single ballot is a raindrop in an ocean. A local election can be decided by a few hundred votes. Down the ballot, an ordinary citizen who simply pays attention and shows up has more real leverage than they will ever have in a presidential race. The country does not actually change from the top. It changes from the offices nobody is watching, which means it changes wherever a few people decide to start watching.
But you cannot hold accountable what you cannot see, and until now the down-ballot offices have been nearly invisible. The national figures are covered to exhaustion; your state legislator and your local prosecutor operate in the dark, which is precisely how an officeholder who would never survive scrutiny survives anyway. The fix is not complicated. It is light. The same standard that grades a senator can grade a state representative. The same questions, did they honor the oath, treat opponents as citizens, use the office in trust or for themselves, apply to a magistrate exactly as they apply to a president, and they matter more locally because the local official has fewer checks and far less attention restraining them.
That is the direction this project is built to grow: out of the spotlight and down the ballot, into the state legislatures, the prosecutors’ offices, the seats that decide your life and assume no one is looking. A tool that lets a voter pull up the conduct of the people actually governing their county is not a smaller version of national politics. It is the part of politics where a single engaged citizen still changes the outcome.
The country changes locally or it does not change at all. The leverage was always down the ballot. We just stopped looking at the place we had the most power, and called it apathy, when it was really only the dark.
Legality Is Not Legitimacy
Everything done in the worst chapters of our history was perfectly legal at the time.
The most common defense offered for a politician’s conduct is also the weakest: it was not illegal. No law was broken. No charge was filed. A court signed off, or no court intervened. The implication is that the matter is settled, that legality is the ceiling of the question and once you clear it there is nothing left to judge.
It is worth remembering how much horror has cleared that bar. Slavery was legal. The auction block, the fugitive slave laws, the breaking apart of families, all of it lawful, much of it blessed by the highest court in the land. Segregation was legal. Separate and unequal was not a loophole; it was the written policy of states, upheld for half a century by judges in good standing. The internment of American citizens by their own government was legal, ratified by the Supreme Court in an opinion that stood for decades. At every one of those moments, a person defending the conduct could have said, truthfully, it is not illegal, and they would have been telling you nothing at all about whether it was right.
Law is a floor, and a moving one. It records what a society has so far been willing to forbid, which is always less than what a society should refuse to tolerate, and sometimes catastrophically less. The law follows the conscience of a people; it does not replace it. To treat legality as the final word is to outsource your moral judgment to whatever the powerful have not yet gotten around to outlawing, which is a strange thing to do given who writes the laws and who benefits from their gaps.
This is why the scorecard does not stop at was it legal. The standard it applies is the one the law itself borrows from in its better moments: the fiduciary standard, the duty owed by anyone who holds power in trust for someone else. A lawyer is disbarred for conduct that is not a crime. A judge is removed for the appearance of impropriety, no indictment required. An officer is cashiered for conduct unbecoming, a standard that has nothing to do with the criminal code. Every serious position of trust is governed by a bar that sits well above mere legality, because the people who hold those positions can do enormous damage while staying carefully inside the law. The highest trust of all, public office, is the one place we somehow agreed to drop that bar to the floor.
Saying this is not a license to invent crimes or to brand someone guilty of things they did not do. The scorecard is ruthless about evidence; an accusation is not a finding, and the unproven gets cleared, not punished. The point is the opposite of recklessness. It is that proven, documented, undisputed conduct does not become honorable just because no statute happened to forbid it, and does not become acceptable just because a friendly authority declined to act. Legality answers a narrow question: will the state punish this. Legitimacy answers the real one: should a free people entrust their power to someone who does this.
Those are different questions, and the gap between them is exactly where the worst abuses of public trust have always lived, carefully legal, entirely illegitimate. A citizen who can only ask the first question has handed the second one to the very people it was supposed to judge.
Conduct Is Fixed Ground. Policy Is Contested Ground.
Why this scorecard grades how a politician behaves and never what they believe.
The first objection people raise to grading politicians is the fear of the thing they have seen too many times: a scorecard that is really just a partisan hit list in a lab coat, dressing up we disagree with you as you failed. It is a fair worry. Almost every scorecard in American life is exactly that. The way out of it is a single discipline, held without exception: grade conduct, never policy.
Policy is contested ground. Reasonable citizens of good faith disagree about taxes, immigration, the size of government, the use of force abroad, the limits of regulation. They disagree because these are genuine value tradeoffs with no arithmetic answer, and a free country is the ongoing argument among people who weigh those tradeoffs differently. The moment a scorecard starts assigning points for the right position on a contested question, it has stopped measuring the politician and started measuring their agreement with the author. It has become one more tribe handing out grades to its own.
Conduct is fixed ground. Whether a person told the truth or lied. Whether they treated opponents as fellow citizens or as enemies to be crushed. Whether they used the office to serve the public or to enrich themselves and their family. Whether they kept their oath when keeping it was costly. These are not matters of opinion that shift with your politics. They are matters of record, documented, datable, and citable, and they read the same whether you love the person or cannot stand them. A lie is a lie from your side and the other. Self-dealing is self-dealing in a red uniform and a blue one. That is the ground a fair standard can actually stand on.
The discipline is harder than it sounds, because partisanship is endlessly creative at smuggling policy back in dressed as conduct. They voted for a bad bill is policy. They lied about what the bill did is conduct. Their immigration position is cruel is policy. They called a group of human beings vermin is conduct. The line is not always comfortable, but it is always there, and the test is simple: could a citizen who holds the opposite policy view still agree that the conduct happened and that it falls short? If yes, it is conduct, and it is fair game. If the only people who would score it as a failure are the ones who already disagree with the policy, it is not conduct, and it does not belong on the scorecard in either direction.
This is also what makes the result checkable. Every score cites a documented act with a primary source. The weighting is published before anyone is graded. A hostile reviewer, someone who despises the author’s politics, can take the same library, apply the same rules, and arrive at the same scores, because the inputs are facts about behavior, not opinions about ideology. That is the whole proof of non-partisanship: not a promise of neutrality, but a method that a determined opponent can run for themselves and check.
Hold that line and the instrument measures something real and shared. Drop it, even once, even for a cause that feels obviously right, and you have built exactly the thing you were trying to replace: a weapon that judges people for thinking differently and calls it a standard. The standard only means something because it stops at conduct. The argument over policy belongs to all of us, and it is supposed to stay an argument.
The Cycle of Destruction, and the Quiet Way Out
Free societies do not usually die from invasion. They die from tolerated decay.
Self-government is the most extraordinary thing our species has ever attempted, and it is quietly failing in front of us, not with a coup or an invasion, but in the ordinary way that free societies actually die: a little tolerated decay at a time.
The pattern is old enough to be predictable. It starts with a breach that gets excused, a leader who lies, or cheats, or treats the public as a mark, and is defended anyway because the alternative is worse, or because he is on the right team, or simply because it has been done before. The excuse is the hinge. Once a breach is excused at the top, it is no longer a breach; it is a precedent. The next person studies it and goes a little further, because the line has already moved and the cost has already been shown to be survivable. Standards do not collapse all at once. They erode one tolerated exception at a time, each one slightly worse than the last, each defended with the same three sentences: it is not illegal, the other side does it, it has been done before.
What makes it a cycle rather than a slope is that the decay feeds itself. Every excused breach lowers what the public expects, and lower expectations elect worse leaders, and worse leaders commit larger breaches, which get excused in turn, lowering expectations further. Contempt becomes normal because it is rewarded. Self-dealing becomes normal because it is unpunished. The enemy framing of fellow citizens becomes normal because it wins. And a people who have been trained to expect this from the top begin to accept it everywhere else, because the seat that was supposed to set the example for the rest of us is now setting a different one. What we tolerate at the top reshapes what we accept everywhere.
The trap in all of this is to look for a rescuer, a better leader who will arrive and reverse the cycle from above. That is the one thing that never comes, because the cycle is not driven by the leaders. It is driven by what the followers are willing to excuse. A worse public cannot be saved by a better politician; it can only be governed by a worse one, because that is who a worse public elevates and protects. The lever was never at the top. It was always in the hands of the people doing the choosing.
Which is also the quiet way out, and the only one that has ever worked. The cycle runs on tolerated breaches, so it stops on intolerance for them, the moment enough citizens stop accepting the three excuses and start applying a fixed standard to their own side as readily as the other. That is not a march or a movement or a man on a horse. It is a change in what individual people are willing to reward, made one citizen at a time, mostly in private, in the ordinary act of deciding who is worth following and who is not. It is undramatic, which is why it is underrated, and it is the only force that has ever actually reversed a decline like this one.
You cannot will a better system into being, and you cannot wait for a better leader to deliver one. The single thing you control is your own consent, what you are willing to tolerate from the people you elevate. The cycle of destruction is powered entirely by that consent. So is the way out. It begins, as it always has, beneath the platform, with the people who decide what they will hold up.