Many people think that the Stephen Colbert interview with Vice-President Joe Biden on Thursday, September 10 was seminal TV. Both had suffered tragic losses in their families and have done a remarkable job of picking up the pieces and moving on, while not forgetting how important the relatives whom they lost were to them.

In May, 2015, Biden’s son, Beau, died from brain cancer. He was only forty-six. By all accounts, he was a remarkable man. He survived a devastating automobile crash in 1972 when he was only three. His mother and sister were killed and his brother seriously injured. He went on to become a very successful lawyer, in private practice, in the Delaware Army National Guard, and in state government, becoming Attorney-General of Delaware. Joe Biden said of Beau, “Success is when your children turn out better than you.”

One of the interesting things that Joe Biden said about Beau to Stephen Colbert was, “He had so much courage; he had so much empathy.” That line really struck me, because I do not recall too many times hear the words courage and empathy in the same sentence. With the benefit of modern technology, I was able to download John F. Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize book, “Profiles in Courage.” Doing a quick word search, I could not find the word “empathy” once in the book. I even double-checked on the word ‘sympathy’ because the two words were often confused in the 1950s when the book was written. Still zero.

I then downloaded a long New York Times Magazine article from March, 2015, “The Brain’s Empathy Gap.” I did a word search on “courage.” I found one use of the word “courageous.”

Joe Biden’s description of his son makes Beau unique. If a person is both courageous and empathetic, it would seem that he is willing to take wise risks while having strong feelings of concern and even love for others. When placed on the global stage, this is particularly important.

Students of the “Republican Brain” have cited that it seems that many Republicans are lacking the “empathy gene.” Perhaps that is why they are so keen on praising, even revering, courage. They like individuals who are willing to face adversity, even when it is not in their comfort zone. What many Republicans seem to lack is a real sense of empathy for the people against whom someone is being courageous. This seems to explain in part how they repeatedly and almost relentless honor “our men and women in uniform” and praise them for their courage. What they often fail to do is to show actual concern for what the mission of these men and women is. They also seem to lack empathy for the soldiers when they confront hardship, as evidenced by the resistance to proper funding for veterans’ care. Many Republicans also seem indifferent to the additional sacrifice that innocent members of the soldiers’ families face after enlistment and deployment.

In the Colbert interview, Joe Biden provided us with an element of authenticity rarely seen in public officials or candidates for office. I have a deeper appreciation of what unique characteristics he could bring to the presidency. It is not too much of a stretch to say that a man who can recognize the combination of courage and empathy in someone else might just have both of those traits as well. At the same time, the Bidens may have developed these traits because of the way they dealt with personal tragedies. It may be more important for Joe Biden to continue to nurture these qualities than to submit himself to the abuse of a presidential campaign. No matter what Joe Biden chooses to do, he has once again provided us with valuable insight into the human experience.

Colbert – Biden, Part I

Colbert – Biden, Part II

The post Joe Biden talks about courage and empathy: a unique combination appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When the Citizens United decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in January, 2010, the most common criticisms were:

1. Corporations are not citizens.

2. It will increase the already disproportionate role of money in politics.

3. There is no requirement for identifying the donors to the SuperPACs that worked on behalf of candidates. Money would now come into the political system that could not be traced.

A common misconception about the ruling was that there would be a firewall between the actual campaign committees for candidates and the SuperPACs that worked parallel to, but distant from, the campaign committees.

As is the case with much of the news, it takes comedians such as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to shine light on what is hidden from much of the public. When Colbert began his semi-facetious campaign to run for president of “the United States of South Carolina,” he quickly determined that he could vastly increase money available for his race if he had a SuperPAC to complement his regular campaign committee. With the help of friend and colleague Jon Stewart and former Federal Elections Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, Colbert completely dispelled the myth that there was strict separation between a campaign committee and a SuperPAC.

Part of Colbert’s shtick is being a control freak. If he were to permit a SuperPAC to be established on his behalf, could he control both the regular campaign committee and the SuperPAC? To find the answer to this question and others, he called upon a true expert in Potter. With crocodile tears flowing, Colbert petulantly accepted the reality that he could not be chairperson of both committees. But as revealed in the video clip below, virtually everything else that Colbert wanted to control both his campaign and the SuperPAC was legal.

Colbert: Can I run for president and keep my SuperPAC?

Potter: No, you cannot be a candidate and run a SuperPAC. That would be coordinating with yourself. You can’t have the PAC, but you can have it run by someone else.

[Jon Stewart enters]

Colbert: Jon, are you here to offer to take over Colbert SuperPAC?

Stewart: I would be honored. But can we do this, because you and I are also business partners?

Colbert: Trevor, is being business partners a problem?

Potter: Being business partners does not count as coordination, legally.

Stewart: I assume that there are reams of complicated paper work that need to be executed before we transfer the reins of power.

Potter: I brought the one document with me.

Stewart: It’s double-spaced.

[Colbert and Stewart each sign once]

Colbert: Colbert SuperPAC is dead.

Stewart: But it has been reborn: The definitely not coordinating with Stephen Colbert SuperPAC, making a better tomorrow, tomorrow. Now that I have the SuperPAC, the money, can I run ads on behalf of Stephen Colbert, perhaps attacking his opponents who I don’t believe in at all?

Potter: Yes you can, as long as you do not coordinate.

Stewart: I’m busy. Can I legally hire Stephen’s current SuperPAC staff to produce these ads that will be in no way coordinated with Stephen?

Potter: Yes, as long as they have no knowledge of Stephen’s plans.

Colbert: Well that’s easy; I don’t know what the hell I’m doing. From now I’ll just have to talk about my plans on my television show and take the risk that you might watch it.

Click to play 

The bottom line is clear. The loopholes that allow official campaign committees and SuperPACs to work together are as large as the ones in Mitt Romney’s safety net for the poor. As Colbert says in his final line, all he has to do is publicly state his plans and Stewart can take those coordination orders. This isn’t just comedy theory. Newt Gingrich actually gave a speech in which he said what he would like his SuperPAC to do. To date there have been no negative repercussions from that because he is following the guidelines as outlined by an honorable former chairperson of the Federal Elections Commission.

So if you thought that the one limitation on runaway campaigns in Citizens United is that official campaigns and SuperPACs cannot coordinate, just watch them do it.

The post Firewall between Super PAC and campaign? Hah! appeared first on Occasional Planet.