TMI Show Ep 68: Trump To Send Migrants to Notorious Torture Camp

Airing LIVE at 10 am Eastern time this morning, then Streaming 24-7 thereafter:

Guantánamo Bay concentration camp, the American human-rights disaster made infamous by the Bush Administration when it sent Muslim detainees to be tortured there out of reach from the law, is about to radically expand. Donald Trump has ordered the camp to prepare for the arrival of 30,000 migrants, many of whom have never been charged with a crime.

On “The TMI Show,” co-hosts Manila Chan and Ted Rall discuss the morality, practicality and political implications of Trump’s latest move in his war against illegal immigrants.

TMI Show Ep 67: You’re (Self-) Fired! Trump Threatens Federal Workers

Live at 10 am Eastern time/8 am Mountain and Streaming all the time after that:

Bearing the same subject line as a downsizing memo sent to Twitter employees by Elon Musk, an ominous mass email was fired out by the Trump Administration to millions of federal employees offering them a buyout if they voluntarily agree to resign within a week. There is a fist inside the velvet glove: most federal agencies will probably be slashed and a substantial number of employees will be furloughed or reclassified to “at-will status,” making them easier to fire. Most remote workers will have to go back to the office. And many will have their offices moved elsewhere.

On “The TMI Show,” co-host Manila Chan is out sick. Filling in for Manila is Robby West, alongside co-host Ted Rall. Robby and Ted will discuss whether Trump has the power to pay buyouts, the possibility of court battles, the pros and cons of remote work and whether this disrespectful treatment of government workers is fair.

Democrats Want a Divorce

          When a marriage is in crisis, a point often occurs when constant bickering, arguing and fighting yields to detachment and hopelessness. The yelling stops. It’s quiet.

But it’s not peace. Exhausted, dispirited and contemptuous, one or both partners give up trying to convince the other that they’re wrong or ought to change. They accept that improvement is highly unlikely and check out emotionally.

Some psychologists call this uneasy calm a “silent divorce.” Dr. Ridha Rouabhia describes a silent divorce as “a state of being legally married but emotionally disconnected from one another, thus carrying within it a relational breakdown that is very often imperceptible but deeply damaging.” By the time you and your spouse are fighting your own personal cold war, odds of divorce are high.

Couples who fall in love and dedicate themselves to long-term committed relationships tend to fit into one of two categories. There are the soulmates who share important values and personality traits. Then there are the complementary types, a.k.a. “opposites attract,” where—hopefully—one partner’s strengths make up for the other’s weaknesses and vice versa.

Complementary couples can have successful marriages. But these relationships work only if each partner appreciates their partner’s contributions and is cognizant as well as grateful that their own failings are generously overlooked. As time builds familiarity and familiarity breeds contempt over the course of a lifetime, that can be challenging.

Years ago, I was close to a classic complementary couple. The wife, whom I met in college, was married to a man ten years older than her. A tight-cropped salt-and-brunet WASP from the Midwest, he was politically and temperamentally conservative, preppy and stuffy. A fluffy-blonde Buddhist-come-lately from the West Coast, she leaned left and was loud, bubbly and unfiltered. Everyone who met them instantly understood their mutual attraction. Wild, sexual and adventurous, my friend dragged her uptight husband out of his shell. She made his life fun and interesting. Organized and always planning for contingencies, he bailed her out and cleaned up her frequent messes. He made her feel safe. They were a cute couple.

Over the years, the mutual gratitude that drove my friends’ Lucy-and-Ricardo marriage ceded territory to sneering contempt. She got tired, and then angry, at always having to initiate sex. He grew weary of the drama from her never-ending series of crises. They fought. Then, they didn’t. They had fought to a stalemate.

Their “silent divorce” lasted a few years before giving way to the real thing.

Everyone thought it was a shame.

They needed one another.

The American political union between partisans of the two major parties is a complementary marriage. Though frequently fractious, for much of the 20th century there was a tacit understanding between Democrats and Republicans that each brought something to the union, to the country, that the other needed even if they weren’t good at verbalizing their appreciation.

Like my friend’s husband, Republicans were America’s stolid, responsible, national caretakers. Based in the countryside (and until recently in the boardroom), they were boring and hated the hippies and their rock ’n’ roll and never would have supported civil rights and other liberation movements had they not been forced upon them. But conservatives also provided and protected virtues like military strength, national pride and deficit hawkishness that, deep in their pot- and LSD-infused souls, many liberals knew were essential to the republic.

And my friend’s wild-and-loopy wife, Democrats were reckless tax-and-spenders who hung out on the coasts and in big cities and tried and failed at social engineering schemes like welfare and affirmative action. But some of those schemes, like Social Security and Medicaid, saved the country, and drove almost all the progress that improved people’s lives and thus staved off revolution. Though they didn’t like to admit it, Republicans knew in their stock-portfolios-for-hearts that liberalism saved them from their rapacious selves and forced them to admit when their wars didn’t work out.

The national marriage started to unravel under Reagan, enjoyed a rapprochement under Clinton and turned ugly under Obama. As with any failed romance, it’s hard to pinpoint a specific moment that marked the beginning of the end. I’d pick 2010, when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” McConnell’s idea of trying to win back the White House wasn’t wild. His formulation, emboldened by the rise of the proto-MAGA Tea Party, was remarkably contemptuous of Democrats. As an opposition party, the GOP was expected to articulate its own set of policies while paying lip service to its willingness to work with the president on issues where the two parties had common ground, rather than center its messaging around pigheaded obstructionism.

            Republicans, having failed to prevent Obama’s reelection in 2012, doubled down in 2014 when McConnell pledged not only to block Democratic initiatives just because, but to threaten to shut down the federal government every time the other party tried to push through a bill.

            Now everything is going their way. White House, Congress, Supreme Court, big tech and a compliant news media—Trump and the Republicans control it all. There was scarcely an echo of the riotous protests in response to Trump’s first inaugural in 2017 in the streets of Washington for the second one last week. Democratic leaders and their allies are despondent, disorganized and silent. “Far from rising up in outrage, the opposition party’s lawmakers have taken a muted wait-and-see approach,” reports The New York Times. Liberals are actively tuning out of politics, canceling their subscriptions and turning off MSNBC, televised organ of the DNC.

            After sounding Defcon-4 at volume 11 every time Trump issued an obnoxious tweet during his first term, incessantly shrieking about the January 6th Capitol riot, unleashing ferocious partisan legal warfare against him and hysterically characterizing a Trumpian restoration as an existential threat to democracy that would bring about real and actual fascism, the post-electoral silence of the liberal lambs is deafening.

            You may feel good about all this, if you’re a Republican.

            Don’t. As the Tacitus quote currently circulating in response to Israel’s flattening of Gaza goes: “They make a desert and call it peace.” The sounds you’re not hearing—leftists marching and chanting down the block, liberals bleating in the comments section, Democratic politicians hollering about Trump’s unprecedented awfulness—are not acquiescence, much less acceptance. They are the disgust of silent divorce.

            Democratic voters (of whom I am not one, I am to their Left) have given up on the Republicans with whom they share a country. Democrats still live under the same roof as their Republican spouses—for the time being, there’s no way for them to move out—but their anger has devolved into a cold contempt from which there is rarely any way back. Those people—Republicans—can stay in their Electoral College-inflated flyover states and watch Fox and NASCAR and vote however they want, including against abortion, and we (the smart people) will keep to ourselves in our urban enclaves. They’re not worth yelling at.

            They’re not even worth talking to.

            This marriage is in trouble.

(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis and The TMI Show with political analyst Manila Chan. His latest book, brand-new right now, is the graphic novel 2024: Revisited.)

TMI Show Ep 66: What Is Communism?

With the Democratic Party in disarray and the Left unable to organize itself into a coherent political movement, it’s a good time for Americans who oppose capitalism to get back to the basics of anti-capitalist politics: communism.

Communism is an economic and political system under which everyone lives equally and has equal access to goods, services and power. Socialism is a system that precedes communism, in which the value added by labor is transferred over time from the ruling-class elites who control it under capitalism to the working class that produces it.

40% of American voters consistently tell pollsters they have a favorable view of socialism. We appear to be in a classic Marxist final crisis of late capitalism, overproduction, yet the media and education systems do not permit serious discussion of alternatives to capitalism.

On “The TMI Show,” co-hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan ask: What is communism exactly? Is it desirable? Is it attainable? Can revolution be achieved non-violently?

 

TMI Show Ep 65: Trump’s FAFO Foreign Policy

Live at 10 am Eastern time/8 am Mountain and Streaming all the time after that:

Trump’s foreign policy is only a week old and all over the place. Over the weekend America’s new president waged and won a short-lived trade war with Colombia, a staunch US ally in Latin America, over deportation flights. We saw mixed messages in Gaza, where Trump urged Arab neighbors to take in displaced Gazans which would appear to set the stage for Israeli ethnic cleansing while simultaneously ordering Israel to extend its ceasefire with Hamas by at least 30 extra days. He threatened Russia even as he said he wants to denuclearize and negotiate with Putin over Ukraine. And who knows what he’s on about when it comes to China, which reversed its previous refusal to accept its own undocumented migrants after the scrap with Colombia?

On “The TMI Show,” co-hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan try to make sense of Trump’s foreign policy. Is it an incoherent mess? Or is there a method to his madness?

DMZ America Podcast Ep 190: So It Begins…Trump 2.0

Live at 1 pm Eastern/12 noon Central time and Streaming anytime after that:

Editorial cartoonists Ted Rall (on the Left) and Scott Stantis (on the Right) break down Donald Trump’s first week as president. From pardons to executive orders to cabinet appointments to the inauguration to domestic and foreign policy legislation, what does what we’ve seen so far augur for the next four years of the Trumpian restoration?

On the DMZ America podcast, political cartoonists Ted Rall (from the Left) and Scott Stantis (from the Right) let you know how they see things without indulging in the usual fussing and fighting.


TMI Show Ep 64: Trump’s First 100 Days

Ever since FDR, we’ve watched a new president’s First 100 Days. Never will Donald Trump have as much political capital as he does now, so he’s jamming through as many executive orders as he can. Will he also be able to get his entire slate of top nominees through the Senate? What should we expect legislatively? From foreign policy?

On “The TMI Show,” co-hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan, are joined by Richmond, Virginia-based talk show host John Reid for an inside look at the immediate impact of Trump’s second term.

TMI Show Ep 63: America: The Party’s Over

Live at 10 am Eastern/8 am Mountain time and Streaming anytime 24-7 thereafter:

America rock ‘n’ rolled all night long and partied every day. Then Boomers started dying, Gen X started having babies, Millennials fell in love with their phones and the pandemic kept us locked up. Only 4.1 percent of Americans attended or hosted a social event on an average weekend or holiday in 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics–a 35% decline since 2004. Party City announced that it would close after years of flagging sales. Teens are engaging in markedly fewer risky behaviors than they used to a major cause is that teenagers are having fewer parties.

After the Spanish flu pandemic, Americans raged through the Roaring Twenties. Why aren’t we doing the same?

Is life without fun worth living? On “The TMI Show” party animals Ted Rall, Manila Chan and guest Scott Stantis of The Chicago Tribune ask whether ennui and angst are driving our politics and whether we’ll again ever do things we’d regret if we remembered them.

TMI Show Ep 62: “Trump’s Foreign Policy Begins to Take Shape”

Live at 10 am Eastern time/9 am Central time and Streaming 24-7 thereafter:

After being unanimously confirmed, Secretary of State Marco Rubio immediately met with his “Quad” counterparts from Australia, India and Japan, signaling a focus on China. Rubio also supervised a 90-day suspension of all foreign aid payments.

In the Middle East, Trump said that he was not optimistic about the prospects for the new ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, and eliminated Biden’s sanctions against some West Bank settlers accused of violence against Palestinians. Meanwhile, Israel appears to be taking advantage of the ceasefire to escalate military attacks and settler violence in the West Bank. Will Trump, an ally of Israel, be able to rein in Netanyahu?

Trump plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the next few weeks and said that they will discuss bringing an end to the war in Ukraine. Most experts believe that Russia will wind up with about a fifth of Ukrainian territory and a guarantee that a rump Ukraine will not join NATO.

Nick Cruse of the Revolutionary Blackout Network joins “TMI Show” hosts Ted Rall and Manila Chan to discuss the state of the world and the American role under Trump.

Trump Grabs at a Presidency of Intentionality

          There are two kinds of leaders: managers and revolutionists.

Most American presidents are managers. Managers have small ambitions, often so small as to be immeasurable. They may or not think that the organization that they’re taking over requires a few nips or tucks, but they believe that the fundamentals are sound. The main ambition of these incrementalists is to attain their position. The moment their buttocks sink into the big chair behind the big desk, they have fulfilled their biggest goal.

It is easy to identify a managerial president during a time of crisis. No matter how bad things get and how angry voters become, managers are loathe to change much. They govern as though continuity were a given.

Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, both consummate technocrats, assumed the nation’s highest office during periods of economic upheaval. Yet they did not follow the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a revolutionist, by introducing major plans or anti-poverty bills to try to alleviate inflation or high unemployment. George H.W. Bush, whose decades in Washington inclined him to even less ambition than outsiders like Carter and Obama, had no discernible plans for the country before moving into the White House in 1989 beyond, like Peter Sellers, just being there. We were mired in recession throughout his term and he did nothing.

            Whatever you think about him or his politics, give this to Donald Trump: he has launched his second term with the biggest intentionality of any president since Ronald Reagan. Clearly having learned from his experience following his first surprise win that political capital ebbs away after inauguration as quickly as a new car loses value, and possibly inspired by the historical benchmark of FDR’s first 100 days, Trump is coming out of the gate with grandiose gestures intended to signal great ambitions that deliver on his long list of dramatic campaign promises.

            The crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border became a top issue for Trump in 2024. And so, within hours of his restoration, he declared an emergency that allowed him to send in military troops, shut down the app used by asylum applicants, declared drug cartels terrorists, tried to end birthright citizenship and, for good measure, demanded that the Gulf of Mexico be renamed. Much of these moves are objectively stupid—birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution, drug runners aren’t terrorists, the number of unauthorized border crossings fell precipitously after Biden basically closed it last summer and let’s not even think about the “Gulf of America”—but you can’t say they’re the small-bore triangulation crap Bill Clinton picked up from Dick Morris, like lower prescription drug prices for seniors, lower student loan interest rates and kneecapping Sister Souljah. And mass deportations are still on the way. If you voted for Trump due to the border crisis, you’re happy.

            Why do we have more managerial than revolutionary presidents? Revolution is hard.

We are barely days into Trump 2.0 yet the challenges are already starting to become apparent. The president’s attempt to McKinsey-ize the federal government into fiscal austerity, the non-actual-departmental Department of Government Efficiency, lost one of its touted pair of pet billionaires less than seven hours after the inauguration when Vivek Ramaswamy pulled out, supposedly to explore a quixotic run for Ohio governor.

Trump can’t help the fact that personnel are unpredictable. But he is responsible for a major oversight in whatever vision he may be pursuing: he has yet to articulate a unified theme for the sweeping changes he presumably intends. FDR did this with characteristic effectiveness in his 1933 inaugural address. Confronting high unemployment at the nadir of the Depression, he said: “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.”

“This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously,” Roosevelt continued. “It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our national resources.” Much of what followed (the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Public Works Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority) fell into the justification for direct job creation by the federal government and helped sell it to the public and Congress.

To the extent that Trumpism is similar to 20th century fascism, it’s that it’s an ideology devoid of internal consistency beyond its point of origin, Donald Trump’s mouth. Under Nazi Germany’s “Führer Principle,” Hitler not only enjoyed the full power of law by making an utterance, but was considered to have created a cogent ideology simply because whatever he believed and ordered came from him. This was, of course, irrational to an extreme and internally inconsistent. For a time, under absolute totalitarian dictatorship, however, Hitler’s cult was sustainable.

Crippled and fake as our democracy is, Americans are still a harder sell than mid-century Germans. In the not so long run, whether Trump succeeds will depend on whether he is able to compose a credible and consistent narrative of what he’s attempting to achieve, as Ronald Reagan did when he downgraded the influence of liberalism within government and elevated the glories of individualism. Saying that everything you do puts America first simply because you said it, won’t cut it.

After decades of managerial presidents who refused to engage with how angry and miserable most of us ordinary citizens have been, it will be interesting, and not a little frightening, to watch this would-be revolutionist.

(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis and The TMI Show with political analyst Manila Chan. His latest book is the graphic novel 2024: Revisited.)

keyboard_arrow_up
css.php