I see the irony deficiency as a sort of anti-intellectualism, which takes us back to Hofstadter's thesis in "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," one laid out pretty much at the time Bacevich begins his analysis of American decline. As Hofstadter wrote, intellectualism:
accepts conflict as a central and enduring reality and understands human society as a form of equipoise based upon the continuing process of compromise. It shuns ultimate showdowns and looks upon the ideal of total partisan victory as unattainable, as merely another variety of threat to the kind of balance with which it is familiar. It is sensitive to nuances and sees things in degrees. It is essentially relativist and skeptical, but at the same time circumspect and humane.
It is this relativism and this skepticism, when turned self-reflectively back on one's self, that develops one's sense of personal irony. One can, and perhaps should, read this as a celebration of democracy, and one suspects the founding father's would have approved of Hofstadter's characterization of the "intellectual" and would have likewise seen "anti-intellectualism" as "anti-democratic." A total partisan victory of any sort is a dictatorship, and a dictatorship is inherently anti-democratic. Hofstadter, however, had a more nuanced view, and found anti-intellectualism embedded "in the democratic institutions and the egalitarian sentiments of this country" and went on to write, "it is rare for an American intellectual to confront candidly the unresolvable conflict between the elite character of his own class and his democratic aspirations." As Nicholas Lemann points out, "of the many forces arrayed against intellectualism, Hofstadter returns most often to evangelical religion—an almost constantly strong influence through all of American history—and business, especially the cheerleading tendency in business that produces the enthusiastic type Hofstadter calls the 'hundred percenter.'” Of course, intellectualism would be opposed to evangelical religion, which is anything but relativist and skeptical. If it supports education, it supports an education that promulgates an absolute dogma, certain not one that promotes "critical thinking," and even more certainly not one that promotes "creative or critical thinking" about core dogma. Business is a bit more nuanced, but not much. It would seem to support an education that promotes "creative or critical thinking," but only insofar as that creativity or critical thinking is immediately utilitarian -- the idea that practical training should take precedence over book-learning -- or, for the more elite, the idea that professional training (particularly in business itself) should take precedence, especially over the arts and humanities, but also the so-called STEM disciplines except insofar as research those disciplines have an immediate pay-back in a "patentable" product.
The Evil Effects of Money
I won't reiterate Bacevich's argument here, but I will simply point out that behind much of the discussion there is a sort of logic, and you can see the logic at work throughout much of the discussion of the "fundraising" necessary for campaign expenses. For example, Shane Goldmacher, in a recent Politico article, writes that Trump's fundraising efforts are
a sharp departure from the primary, when [he] claimed he couldn’t be bought and his decision to pour tens of millions of his own money into the race was central to his image as a selfless billionaire sacrificing for the betterment of the nation. But now that both he and Clinton are leaning on big donors to fund their fall campaigns, it is Clinton who is more open about her own finances and where the money is coming from.
One hardly knows where to begin unpacking such a statement, but first the assumption that money, lots of money, is necessary to winning an election. Let me say up front that it is necessary, but not sufficient. One can point to the failed candidacy of Jeb Bush as an example. He had the necessary cash on hand to run an effective campaign, but failed regardless. One could do an autopsy on his failed campaign, and for my own two cents, in retrospect it is obvious that he failed to take into account the disaffection of two overlapping constituencies within the republican voting class, the evangelical and the white nationalist right. Ted Cruz co-opted the former, Donald Trump the latter, leaving Jeb Bush with the support of the conservative donor class, which has always insufficient to win an actual election. It's important to recognize this because, citizen's united aside, it is clear enough that elections cannot be bought outright.
They can, however, be bought to a degree -- that is to say, the degree to which donors provide the funding necessary to run an effective campaign. The republicans are caught in something of a quandary here. The ideological stance of the candidate IS important, and donors had contributed to Jeb Bush on two assumptions, that he was strong enough to hold the prevailing coalition of the republican voting class together and that he would represent their interests once elected. The republican donor class, until recently, have resisted contributing to Trump around the same two assumptions. He is, apparently, strong enough to hold the prevailing coalition of the republican voting class together, though he unwittingly clarified it in ways that have made many very uncomfortable, revealing that the racial resentments of the white nationalist right trump the religious sentiments of the evangelical right, but in doing so he thumbed his nose at all else. It is not at all clear that he would represent their interests once elected, particularly their interests in global trade, the treaties that establish the terms favorable to their interests, and the military coalitions that help insure a stability conducive to trade. He could thumb his nose at the donor class, and the party elites that support them, in part because he claimed that he was "self-funding" his campaign. Unlike all the other candidates, he could speak his mind - however muddled, however "politically incorrect," however fabulous -- because he "couldn't be bought." His statements may not accord with the facts, but the were ostensibly "true" to Trump.
The second assumption, implicit to much of the discussion above, is this: money is never just given, but is given in the expectation of "something" in return, even if that "something" is a consistent pursuit of the candidate's previously professed ideology. This caveat is important. It is one thing to receive a large donation, BECAUSE the candidate has a position the donor wants to support and the donation is predicated on that being her "true" position, that being a stance the donor can rely upon. Such does not completely escape cynicism. The candidate may express a position BECAUSE she knows, up front, that it is the position expected of her by her donors, positions made clear by the legion of lobbyists whose job it is to make the position of the donor class clear. The candidate's job to make the positions of the donor class acceptable to the voting class. In this way, the donor class "pre-selects" the candidate and provides them with the resources necessary to win elections. This represents a big money perversion of democracy, but it escapes the outright hypocrisy and corruption of the quid pro quo that simply buys a vote on a position favorable to the "contributor."
In a capitalist society, we shouldn't be surprised. Money is a medium of exchange. I give you money. You give me goods and services. While the assumption may not be AS true for small donors, who individually are in no position to either "pre-select" a candidate's views or demand a specific quid pro quo, it is CERTAINLY true of large donors, who are in a position to demand the goods in return. Consequently, within democratic capitalism, it is important for the voting class to know who is giving, how much they are giving, and what they might expect in return should their candidate be elected. Clinton, at least, provides a donor list for scrutiny, and it is clear enough that she is a "pre-selected" candidate, one who knows up front what the donor class expects of her and is willing to toe the line. Consequently, many of the small donors who contributed to Sanders felt "sold out" when he endorsed Clinton, in part because it ran counter to so much of his previously professed ideology, his antipathy to the donor class, particularly the so-called global elites. There was, one might add, a form of faux intellectualism in Sander's campaign. He resembled nothing if not the sort of campaign that might have been run by one's favorite, slightly eccentric, radical but not rabid college professor -- a more likable Noam Chomsky. I say faux intellectualism, not so much in critique of Sanders, who probably is circumspect and humane, but of those who turned him into a "movement." As Sanders' endorsement indicated, he accepted conflict and mostly likely saw society as an equipoise based on a series of compromises. As a career politician, he probably didn't expect a complete partisan victory up front, and his discernible influence on Clinton, the big money candidate, was perhaps more than he expected up front. By nudging Clinton to the left, his campaign put America into a better, if not ideal position, but those small donors of the voting class and the celebrities like Susan Sarandon who turned him into a "movement" wanted the ideal without the compromise. They became, in almost every respect, the flip side of the evangelical coin, devoid of the self-reflective irony.
Trump however has signaled over and over his willingness to engage in the more outright corruption of the quid pro quo, the deal. One might expect some of the same disappointment relative to Trump, now that he is beginning to solicit funding. As Goldmacher put it, "trump’s move to keep his bundlers secret is just one element of a dramatic campaign-finance flip, from attacking donors to soliciting them, from bashing super PACS to embracing them, from promising to release his taxes to refusing. Some of the very donors he demonized by name Trump has since gone back to seek support from, hat-in-hand." As Goldmacher reported elsewhere in Politico, "after spending months scolding his rivals for being beholden to their financial backers, Donald Trump unveiled an economic advisory council last week — and filled it with some of his biggest donors." If Trump wants the funding necessary to run a national campaign, he will need to convince the conservative donor class that he will support their interests, and that he will do so consistently. Since these interests run counter to much of what he has professed, particularly what he has professed on behalf of the voting class, he will need to convince the contributing donor class -- despite his protestations against trade, despite his railing against NATO and the middle east wars -- that he can, quite literally, be bought. Although this points to an obvious hypocrisy, his lack of transparency points to an even deeper distrust of democratic processes that would subject that hypocrisy to scrutiny. If big money donations are going to play a role in democratic processes, it is important for the voting class to know who is giving, how much they are giving, and what they might expect in return should their candidate be elected. It is even more important when the candidate is so clearly and so cynically offering access in return for cash, is so clearly being "bought."
Whether or not "the reversals ... rob Trump of credibility on what had been one of his most effective outsider themes and signature lines of attack" remains to be seen, but I suspect not. Having committed to Trump, they too have turned Trump into a movement of sorts. They have directed their evangelical zeal toward his campaign. As Goldmacher put it, "Trump continues to hammer Hillary Clinton for her pursuit of campaign cash, even as he has joined in the hunt. 'She’s got to do right for her donors,' he said last Monday at a rally in Ohio 'I’m going to do right for you.'” Even more so than the Sanders followers, the Trump followers, already conditioned by evangelical religion, have invested almost as much faith in "The Art of the Deal" as they have in the Bible. It would take a great deal of self-directed skepticism, a sense that one just might maybe have been wrong about Trump and his character, to even ask the question "what exactly ARE you going to do for us?" Instead they are like Job, after all their afflictions, maintaining the faith and awaiting the beneficence that will reward their faith.
The Perverse Impact of Identity Politics
As Friedman of the New York Times reports, Trump said at a rally in Wilmington, N.C., on Tuesday. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know." There is so much that is wrong with this statement that it's hard to know where to even begin. The liberal press interpreted the remark as a threat against the life of Clinton or the judges she might appoint if elected. There is good reason to do so. While one can accuse the Huffington Post for liberal bias, they end each story on Trump with the following line: "Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims." If one clicks on the link for "incites political violence," it take one to a story listing the various incidents where Trump has condoned and even called for violence. The direct evidence is hard to ignore since most of it is actual video from his campaign rallies. Taken within this larger context of calls to violence, the remark loses some of its ambiguity. Although one might be tempted to dismiss it as political bombast, Friedman makes the point (slightly paraphrased) that "there are always people down the line who don’t hear the caveats. They just hear the big message: The (wo)man is illegitimate, the (wo)man is a threat to the nation, the (wo)man is the equivalent of a Nazi war criminal. Well, you know what we do with people like that, don’t you? We kill them. " It could be just political hyperbole, but as Friedman goes on to point out, "an informal Trump adviser on veteran affairs, Al Baldasaro, a Republican state representative from New Hampshire, already declared that Clinton should be 'shot for treason' for her handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack." Even if the remark is not meant literally, it is not beyond the pale that someone might not take Trump or Baldasaro at their word and assassinate Clinton.
Let's assume that Trump really didn't mean to suggest violence, that we was simply calling for a united vote from all those who support their 2nd Amendment rights. As Trump communications adviser Jason Miller explained, his "comments were meant to spur 'American voters who are passionate about their Second Amendment rights ... to use that power at the ballot box' and that any suggestion otherwise was 'desperate,' 'outrageous' and 'ridiculous.'" The statement is still wrong on so many levels that it beggars description. First, one might ask, why didn't he just say "those who support the 2nd Amendment should unify their vote against Clinton?" Either he lacks the verbal skills necessary to clearly articulate a position and will need his "apologists" over and over and over again if elected president, or he chose his words carefully and is sending a deliberate signal. To be honest, I don't think Trump has the ability to choose his words carefully. His syntax is convoluted and he has difficulty putting together simple declarative sentences in sequence. He is certainly no Obama and he is even more certainly no Reagan in terms of verbal felicity, but let's again give him the benefit of the doubt. If chose his words carefully, one can only assume that he meant to "send a signal," and left himself "personal deniability" should he be called out on it. His verbal tic -- "many people are saying" -- is clearly a way of "sending a signal" while leaving himself room for "personal deniability," so there is some reason to believe it has gone beyond a verbal tic and has become an habitual way of communicating. The question then becomes, "to whom is he sending the signal?"
Before I answer that question, let me take a brief detour that will lead me back to the point. There is another aspect to Trump's locution that bears noting. He didn't say "those who support 2nd Amendment rights." He said "second amendment people," and in the process created (or referenced) a whole new identity group. There are two aspects to this "new" identity group, the first of which concerns a belief concerning the "legitimacy" of the federal government, the second of which is the "signal" right to keep and bear arms to protect one's self from and, if necessary, take action against an illegitimate government. As Heather Digby Parton writes for Salon, "we are already seeing the contours of their latest attempt to make that victory illegitimate. Donald Trump has announced that he believes the election results will be invalid if Clinton wins. He told Sean Hannity that 'November 8th, we’d better be careful, because that election’s going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or it’s going to be taken away from us.'" He adds, "I’ve been hearing about it for a long time,” and of course he has. For example, "the voter fraud myth has been flogged by the right wing for decades now despite no evidence that it exists. Trump has begun building up his argument based upon recent court rulings against certain onerous Voter ID laws." One could point out that these laws, along with heavily gerrymandered districts, actually DO rig elections, but not in favor of either racial minorities or the democratic candidates they tend to support. Nevertheless, fully "69 percent of North Carolina Trump voters think that the only way Trump can lose is if the Democrats steal it. There’s no reason to think Trumpies are any less gullible in other states."
So, if the election is rigged, the results stolen, what to do? -- the answer, in brief, is to "declare independence." Consider, for example, the rhetoric of the "constitution party." They write:
Disarmament is apparently one of the building blocks President Obama intends to use in building his new Orwellian, total surveillance police state. Despite his and Vice President Biden’s rhetoric, they must understand that disarmament will not “keep millions of people out of harm’s way” nor will it save “thousands of lives.” Vice President Biden has been quoted as saying the president is considering executive action after his inauguration on January 21. Such an executive order is not permitted under the Constitution and it would place the president clearly outside the law. That is apparently a place in which the president seems quite comfortable as he legislates by executive order, appoints his czars to run his administration’s agenda without Senate confirmation, and conducts wars while insisting that even consulting Congress – let alone getting approval – is not required. He chooses the example of history’s tyrants instead of the founding fathers. Why would he do that unless disarmament is part of his long-term strategy to fundamentally change America, and he needs a helpless, disarmed public to accomplish his goals?
Such was written, apparently, before Obama's second term inauguration and of course he didn't issue an executive order, didn't confiscate firearms, or anything of the sort. Nor has he declared martial law, ensconced himself as dictator, or given much credence to those who want "very bigly" to believe his presidency is illegitimate, and will see Clinton in the same way as simply a continuation of Obama. Nevertheless, similar themes are being hammered home during the 2016 election with Trump claiming that "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment." Fact checkers have pooh-poohed Trump's assertion, but they focused on the larger issue of simply abolishing the 2nd Amendment, finding no evidence of that what-so-ever. As Politifact reports, "She wants to enact stricter gun control, but has no objection to responsible gun ownership." The fact checkers, however, overlook the weasel word "essentially." If one's intent is to defend oneself from an illegitimate federal government, sensible gun control -- e.g. the banning of assault rifles -- becomes ominous. It "essentially" becomes the first step on the slippery slope toward the "surveillance police state" enforced against a "helpless, disarmed public." As the Tenth Amendment Center put it, "A person buys an 'assault weapon' because it declares their self-ownership and right to revolution in a way a discreet-looking rifle does not. Gun control advocates perceive this, perhaps on a subconscious level. It’s an act of defiance against their ideology which preaches government is ultimately sovereign and has a moral imperative to maintain superiority of arms over the people. It’s why they don’t care what type of swords, crossbows, pikes or spears people own; those weapons pose no threat to the government or its ability to control the populace." For those who see a "right to revolution," appeals to "sensible gun control" or to "responsible gun ownership" are simply "head fakes."
I am suggesting that Trump is not calling upon "responsible gun owners" to vote against Clinton, but is calling upon those "Second Amendment People," perhaps on a subconscious level, who believe the current government is illegitimate, who believe they are "empowered" by the 10th Amendment to resist an illegitimate government, and who believe the "right to bear arms" is essential to that resistance. One need only peruse the web sites briefly to understand that "Second Amendment People" have fundamentalist conservative attitudes on most flash points -- abortion, taxes, education, and immigration. One need only reflect briefly that "states rights," local sovereignty, and self-ownership are also buzz words for rather sketchy racial and gender orientation attitudes.
I won't do a detailed take down of the arguments advanced by the 10th Amendment Center or the Constitutional Party. I must say there is a sort of erudition to their arguments, but for the most part it is a mis-placed erudition. It is a style of argument familiar to those who frequent the pews of the evangelical right. They have invented a bogeyman, a federal Obama-led conspiracy against the American people. They justify action against that imagined bogeyman using a variety of pretexts cherry picked from the debates surrounding the creation of the constitution and the constitution itself. In the end, they believe themselves to be engaged in a contest between good and evil. It is skeptical, but it lacks the irony of self-reflective skepticism. It directs its skepticism only, with great nuance one might add, at the actions of the invented bogeyman. The only acceptable outcome is the total partisan victory of the good over the evil, and it eschews any "continuing process of compromise" as itself evil.
Everything in the context of Trump's remarks suggests that he is, yet one more time, poking at the coals of white identity, but he is doing so in a way that threatens -- if not overtly, then covertly -- an orderly presidential succession, a hallmark of our democracy. I am suggesting that a sizable part of the population will believe from the outset that her presidency is illegitimate from the start, that she did not win "fair and square," that her presidency does not represent the "will of the people," and that she should, to use Newt Gingrich's words, "be opposed at every turn, by any means necessary, and, if possible, destroyed." How literally those hearing the signal will take the word "destroyed" is anyone's guess, but it only takes one. Given "Trump's Long Dalliance with Violent Rhetoric" and his refusal to quell it, the Secret Service might want to redouble their protection of Clinton.
The Substitution of "Reality" for Reality
When all is said and done, Trump's and the republican party's relationship with the press will deserve a full analysis, more than can be done here in a paragraph or two. Over the last quarter century, they have engaged in what might be called a "confirmation bias" style of argument, and it is the sort of argument familiar to religious fundamentalism. It begins with certain dogmatic assertions that MUST be true and cannot be doubted. It is not that the assertions have been SHOWN in any way to be true and have consequently removed themselves from the possibility of doubt either by logic or by evidence. It is rather a compulsory truth and doubt is simply impermissible or irrelevant. It is conducive to a parental and authoritarian style of argument -- that is to say, when authority is questioned, the response is "because I said so." Or for the biblically minded, it is the response of the lord to job -- "can you pull up Leviathan with a fishhook?" To which Job ultimately replied, "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." Job's submission was complete and, because it was complete, rewarded. If the authority deigns to offer evidence, it is only evidence that confirms the truth of the originating assertions. Those who continue to offer up contradictory or anomalous evidence -- the sort of evidence that creates skeptical doubt -- must be intentionally trying to subvert faith in the true dogma. They must be under a different -- and perverse -- compulsion.
I am suggesting, of course, that the relationship between the republican party and the press is the relationship between those who hold a true dogma against those who continue to offer up contradictory or anomalous evidence. Their pulpit, so to speak, is fox news, and the voice of opposition is the so-called "mainstream media" which continuously tries to subvert the true faith. Thus it is that fox news, itself mainstream media by almost any measure, can castigate the mainstream media without irony. As Allen S. Weiner and Duncan Pickard write in the Washington Post, The latest victim in the presidential race’s assault on truth — to say nothing of nuance — came last week in the flurry of accusations surrounding the United States’ payment of $400 million to Iran. Donald Trump called it ransom, and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) accused the United States of acting like a 'drug cartel. '" Fox News, of course, did nothing to correct that impression that we were paying ransom, but a bit later did report that "the Obama administration is being accused of stalling a congressional investigation into a purported $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded “ransom payment” to Iran in exchange for the release of several U.S. prisoners, according to documents and information provided to the Washington Free Beacon by sources familiar with the matter." To unpack this single sentence takes some grammatical nuance, but bear with me. First it is a passive construction. It suggests that the Obama administration is being accused, but the sentence never states by whom he is being accused. Second, it doubles down on the passive construction. One might leap to the conclusion that the accusations come from "sources familiar with the matter," and the "matter" is evidence suggesting the payment as an act of bribery, but the "sources" are simply the people that provided the documents to the Washington Free Beacon and they are "familiar," not with evidence that might support the accusation of bribery, but merely with the expected partisan squabbling behind the accusation of bribery. In the end, there is little in the way evidence for a quid pro quo payment to secure the release of the prisoner except the "coincidence" of timing. Even if Iran used the money as a bargaining chip relative to the nuclear deal and the release of prisoners, my overwhelming response is a shoulder shrug. The money had been under dispute since 1979, through the tenure of five presidents, both republican and democrat. The dispute was settled on terms favorable to the US, the prisoners released alive, a nuclear deal signed -- good, good, good in the "continuing process of compromise." It is, however, the very act of "compromise," particularly with a muslim regime, that is ultimately suspect.
Although Trump himself no more represents the dogma of a true conservatism -- and if he fails, as appears very likely, those who hold the faith will assume, yet once again, that the failure can be attributed to a lapse of faith, his swerve away from the truth of true conservatism -- he has nevertheless adopted their relationship with the press, and upped the ante. He has displaced the dogmatic "reality" with a narcissistic "reality," a selfie "reality." The ransom claim is just small potatoes. His latest stunt concerns Obama as a founder of ISIS. As Politico reports,
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a top Trump surrogate, expressed frustration with Trump’s “imprecise language” and “shorthand” speaking style. “He sometimes uses three words when he needs 10,” Gingrich told Fox News, adding that had Trump, for example, explained that Obama and Clinton’s decision to pull out of Iraq created the vacuum that allowed the emergence of the Islamic State, he’d be “100 percent accurate.” “When you instead comprise them into ‘Obama created ISIS’ — I know what Trump has in his mind, but that’s not what people hear,” he said. “He has got to learn to use language that has been thought through and that is clear to everybody and to stick to that language because otherwise the mainstream media is gonna take every possible excuse to pile on him.”
It is odd to hear Newt Gingrich speaking as the voice of reason. Nevertheless, while the decision to pull out of Iraq is debatable, at least it refers to a reality and it is debatable. Here again, however, Gingrich's defense of Trump is just wrong on any level. If Trump cannot express what "Trump has in his mind," that alone disqualifies him from assuming the presidency. At the very very least one might hope the so-called "leader of the free world" would be able to express what he has in mind, and to do it in ways that is "clear to everybody." Behind Gingrich's remark, however, is the assumption that the "mainstream media" is anti-Trump and by extension anti-conservative, that they spend their time looking for and taking "every possible excuse to pile on." In some respects, one suspects this is simply projection. In their good vs evil, life-and-death struggle with Obama, the conservative media and fox news in particular "does take every possible excuse to pile on." The characterization of the Iran payment as "ransom" is just one small recent example of the same. It is assumed, in other words, that the "mainstream media" is engaged in an evil vs good, life-and-death struggle with Trump and conservatism, but I doubt that many within the mainstream media would have characterized their engagement with Trump in quite that way, at least not initially. It very well may seem that way now.
As many have pointed out, this descent first into a dogmatic "reality," then into a narcissistic "reality," has been fueled in part by social media. Trump's verbal tic, "many are saying," may be a way of weaseling personal deniability, but it is also an indicator that we have descended into the domain of social media, where the number of "clicks" and the number of "likes" are the arbiter of success. Truth is a secondary concern, so long as "many are saying," and there is traffic. It perhaps goes without saying that a self-absorbed Bieber peeing into a mop pail would get more "traffic" than a sober climate scientist discussing melting ice floes, that a nude Miley Cyrus swinging on a wrecking ball gets more "traffic" than an expert on the wreckage of middle east history, so too the self absorbed Trump swinging on his own wrecking ball gets more "traffic." As reported by the Washington Times, the radio host Hugh Hewitt gave Trump an out on his "Obama founded ISIS," but he didn't take the opportunity. “No, I meant that he’s the founder of ISIS - I do,” Mr. Trump said. "It’s no mistake - everyone’s liking it,” Mr. Trump said. “I think they’re liking it." It is there that Trump gives himself away. Trump isn't asserting that it's "no mistake" because it's true. Trump is asserting that it's "no mistake" because "everyone's liking it." The truth, ultimate, has been displaced by the thumbs up "like," and the implicit "applause line" appeal of "like me."
No comments:
Post a Comment