Wheels On Down the Road

Tag: Political Commentary

  • A Dangerous Precedent

    A Dangerous Precedent

    A Quick Word Before We Begin

    In the age of TikTok headlines and 24-hour news cycles, stories come and go at warp speed. Even major developments—like the string of settlements between powerful institutions and Donald Trump—are quickly overshadowed by the next viral controversy. While much has already been said about these deals, I believe this conversation deserves more depth and context. So I’m adding my voice to it. Let’s dig in.

    When Colleges and Newsrooms Pay to Stay Silent

    Columbia made a massive $200 million payout. ABC followed with a $15 million hush-money deal. CBS also sealed a deal worth $16 million. Institutions are caving to politically motivated pressure, which jeopardizes academic integrity, press freedom, and democratic norms.

    Something Strange, and Dangerous, Is Happening

    In the past eight months, a pattern has emerged. Institutions, once considered the bedrock of academic freedom, are quietly agreeing to large settlements. These agreements are with Donald Trump or his administration. These aren’t settlements of moral or legal accountability. They are settlements of political intimidation.

    Let’s walk through the cases:

    1. Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million. This payment resolves federal investigations tied to its handling of foreign funding disclosures. It also addresses its response to antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests. The payment allowed Columbia to restore access to roughly $400 million in frozen federal funding.
    2. ABC News, owned by Disney, settled a defamation lawsuit by Trump. This was over George Stephanopoulos’s repeated claim that Trump was “found liable for rape” in the E. Jean Carroll case—a legal finding that actually stopped short of that label. Disney paid $15 million to Trump’s presidential library and another $1 million in legal fees.
    3. Paramount/CBS settled with Trump after he alleged that a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris constituted “election interference.” The network agreed to pay $16 million. It also agreed to donate programming value to Trump’s campaign. Additionally, it will release full transcripts of future candidate interviews.

    None of these settlements included a court finding against the institutions. None of them were compelled by loss in court. They were voluntary. And that’s the problem.

    Columbia University: $200 Million and Policy Concessions

    Columbia’s settlement was staggering not just in dollars but in scope. Beyond the $200 million fine, it included sweeping changes to academic and student governance. The changes involved reshaping its Middle Eastern studies department. It banned race-based admissions policies. Additionally, dozens of students and faculty were disciplined.

    The underlying investigations were rooted in Trump-era policies that targeted elite academic institutions. Critics argue they were less about compliance and more about culture war. By settling, Columbia may have preserved short-term funding but sacrificed its long-term credibility as an independent educational institution.

    ABC News: $15 Million for a Word

    The ABC News case sets an equally grim precedent. After anchor George Stephanopoulos repeatedly misstated that Trump had been found liable for rape, Trump sued for defamation. The actual legal finding was for sexual abuse and defamation, not rape.

    Rather than fight the case, Disney paid $15 million to Trump’s presidential library and covered $1 million in legal fees. They also issued a public apology.

    This may seem like a reasonable correction, but the implications are dire. Legal scholars warn that it gives powerful public figures a playbook. They can target a minor misstatement. Then, they escalate it into a lawsuit. Finally, they extract concessions to fuel their political brand.

    CBS/Paramount: Election Interference, or Editorial Independence?

    The CBS settlement over its 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris is arguably the most absurd. Trump alleged the interview violated election law by favoring Harris and sued under Texas’s consumer protection laws.

    Despite the lawsuit’s flimsy legal grounding, Paramount settled. The company agreed to a $16 million payout. Additionally, they accepted a range of non-financial concessions. These include releasing full interview transcripts for any future presidential candidates.

    CBS insiders expressed outrage. One longtime producer resigned, calling the settlement a betrayal of journalistic independence. Dan Rather called it “a sell-out to extortion.”

    Many media analysts and political commentators believe the settlement was about more than just legal risk. It was aimed at facilitating Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media. Trump could effectively stall or block the merger through his influence over the FCC. The settlement is widely seen as a strategic move to secure regulatory clearance.

    The Real Damage: Institutional Cowardice

    What these cases share is not just large payouts—it’s institutional surrender. When power is abused to intimidate, institutions should stand up, not cave in.

    The real damage isn’t measured in millions of dollars. It’s in:

    • The self-censorship that will follow. Reporters and professors may avoid controversial topics.
    • The politicization of academic research and journalistic standards. Compliance becomes policy.
    • The erosion of public trust. If our most credible institutions fold under pressure, who can we trust to speak truth to power?

    What’s at Stake

    These settlements are not about accountability. They are about leverage.

    They reveal a strategy: use the legal system to financially exhaust your critics, then spin their silence into political capital.

    If this continues, we risk normalizing a future where:

    • Power is transactional.
    • Truth is negotiable.
    • Dissent is punishable.

    What We Need Now

    This moment demands more than outrage. It demands resolve. Here’s what must happen:

    1. Demand Transparency – Institutions must publicly explain their settlement decisions.
    2. Strengthen Legal Protections – For journalism, academic freedom, and nonprofit independence.
    3. Support Courageous Institutions – Alumni, donors, and audiences should reward integrity, not cowardice.

    Because when truth is silenced by settlements, democracy becomes little more than a brand.

    If you appreciated this analysis, share it widely. Stay loud. Stay informed. Because the cost of silence is too high.

    Sources

  • Not a Fan of the Man But Like the Plan

    Not a Fan of the Man But Like the Plan

    Why Elon Musk’s “America Party” Could Shake Up U.S. Politics

    I am a big fan of Elon Musk. Let’s just get that out of the way up front.

    His contributions and support in the past of President Trump have been problematic. His handling of public infrastructure and social programs has also caused concern.

    Additionally, he casually toys with systems people actually depend on, both in the U.S. and around the world. These actions have done real harm. That’s not a small thing. And it’s part of why I approach anything he does with a healthy dose of skepticism.

    But then he threw a wrench into American politics yesterday by announcing his new America Party. Whether you love him or hate him, you have to admit it’s a bold move. Even if you mostly just wish he’d stay in his lane, it’s a bold move. One that’s already sparking debate, and it’s definitely got me thinking too.

    I may not be a fan of the man, but I like the plan. It’s not his plan specifically, at least not yet. It’s the bigger idea.

    This country deserves more than two political parties playing tug-of-war with our future. This moment prompted me to reflect on our history. I considered the role third parties have played in shaping American democracy. They could still play an important part.

    We Weren’t Always Just Red and Blue

    American political history has always been a bit messier than the red-vs-blue binary we’ve come to expect. The U.S. used to have vibrant (and sometimes downright bizarre) political alternatives. Some shaped the nation. Others burned fast and weird.

    Here’s a quick tour through notable political parties that once stirred the pot:

    Party NameYears ActiveNotable For
    Federalist Party1790s–1820sThe original pro-central government party; Hamilton’s legacy.
    Democratic-Republican Party1790s–1820sJefferson and Madison’s vision; states’ rights-focused.
    Whig Party1830s–1850sAnti-Jackson coalition; produced four presidents.
    Know-Nothing Party1850sNativist, anti-immigration movement.
    Free Soil Party1848–1854Opposed slavery’s expansion.
    Progressive Party (Bull Moose)1912Teddy Roosevelt’s breakaway reform movement.
    Socialist Party of AmericaEarly 1900sPushed labor rights; Debs ran for president from prison.
    States’ Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrats)1948Segregationist Southern breakaway group.
    American Independent Party1968–presentGeorge Wallace’s ultra-conservative party.
    Reform Party1995–presentRoss Perot’s fiscally conservative, anti-corruption effort.
    Green Party1984–presentEnvironment, peace, and social justice.
    Libertarian Party1971–presentSmall government, civil liberties, and personal freedom.

    Want to go deeper? Full list on Wikipedia

    What Elon Musk Just Did

    As reported by The Guardian, Fox News, and CNBC:

    • Musk launched the America Party via X (formerly Twitter), saying it would reclaim power for the people.
    • Framed it as a response to the “uniparty” — a dig at both Democrats and Republicans.
    • Criticized Trump’s $3.3 trillion spending bill.
    • Declared he would target 2–3 Senate seats and 8–10 House seats, not the presidency (yet).
    • Claimed the party would represent the “80% in the middle.”
    • A poll on X showed 65% support — but no voter verification.

    Why a Third Party Could Be a Good Thing

    • Centrists feel homeless. Millions of voters don’t feel represented by either major party.
    • Accountability improves. A strong third voice can hold both sides in check.
    • Elections could get real. Ranked-choice voting and open primaries could gain traction.
    • New ideas. Politics could become about solutions, not just brand loyalty.

    But… There Are Some Big Problems

    • Ballot access nightmares. Every state has its own rules and deadlines.
    • No ground game. Musk has no party infrastructure or grassroots support.
    • Spoiler effect. Could split votes and backfire — especially in tight races.
    • Brand confusion. What does the “America Party” even stand for?

    Even If It Fails, It Sends a Message

    If nothing else, the America Party proves there’s a real hunger for something new. Maybe Musk’s version fizzles — but maybe it opens the door for better third-party efforts in the future.

    Perhaps it encourages changes to ballot access laws. These changes would help minority parties, such as the Green and Libertarian Parties, gain access to local, state, and federal races.

    More choices.
    More voices.
    More ideas.
    More democracy.

    Join the Conversation

    Where do you stand on this? I want to hear from you:

    • Could a serious third party get your vote?
    • Do you think Musk’s money makes this a real threat or is this just political cosplay?
    • Which defunct party do you wish was still around?
    • If you could create a party what would it’s name be and what would you stand for?

    Drop your thoughts in the comments — I’ll be reading.

    Sources and Further Reading