On August 17, 1998 President Bill Clinton delivered a speech to the American public addressing an inappropriate relationship with a former White House Intern, Monica Lewinsky. In comparison to Robert M. Eisingers “The Political Non-Apology” Clinton 's public apology has some of the characteristics of a full apology but, is predominantly a non-apology. Although, acknowledges the offense committed, he minimizes his offense throughout the speech and plays the victim card in attempts to potentially restore his reputation. At some points he attempts to apologize, but his choice of words diminish the effectiveness of his apology and his form of non-apologizing is used to his advantage.
Clinton appears to meet some of the criteria of a full apology; “...include acknowledging the offense, taking responsibility, and either offering a form of recompense, or assuring the offended parties it would not happen again.”(138) as Eisinger described, but he fails to clearly state his offense, offer recompense or assure offended parties it wouldn 't happen again. Back in 98’, Clinton stated “Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight. As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. “(1) He made it clear at this point in his speech that he was questioned about his relationship with the Intern and he rhetorically and vaguely acknowledges the offense in an active tone. …show more content…
“Aaron Lazare identifies eight characteristics of what he calls a “pseudo-apology.” According to Lazare, a pseudo-apology 1) offers a vague and incomplete acknowledgement of the offense; 2) uses the passive voice; 3) makes the ostensible offense conditional; 4) questions whether the victim has been harmed or damaged; 5) minimizes the offense; 6) uses the empathic “I’m sorry” (e.g., “I’m sorry you were offended.”); 7) apologizes to the wrong party; or 8) apologizes for the wrong offense.;”(137 Eisinger)
The active tone makes him seem believable and softens up his speech but, that quickly changes and he ironically diminishes his apology furthermore by transforming it into a pseudo-apology/non-apology. The incomplete acknowledgement of his offence was the first clear sign this man is not actually apologetic. “While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.”(1 Clinton) By emphasizing that his decision to admit to his wrong doings were not by choice, that they were coerced, Clinton went to great lengths to minimize his offense and intentionally avoids explaining the situation. Minimizing an offense is a clear indicator of a non-apology, and the use of this shortly after the false acknowledgment his wrongs, wasn 't effective. Eisinger explains, “Not wanting to describe the offense may be understandable, but failing to acknowledge why an apology is necessary both defeats the apology’s purpose, and suggests that the wrongdoer may not appreciate what egregious acts he has committed.”(137) Clinton uses the non-apology by focusing the attention away from himself, and focusing it on his daughter, wife, and God. An explanation for this may be, “Given the limited number of scandalized politicians who utter apologies, a quantitative comparative analysis will not yield statistically significant results. However the limited evidence suggests that non-apologies potentially restore the reputation of the accused.”(139 Eisinger) The reference to his family could possibly help his reputation with the public by demonstrating that even though Clinton is under scrutiny for his distasteful actions with Monica Lewinski, he is still a family man”, who’s only concern is his relationship with his “wife, daughter, and God.” “Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most - my wife and our daughter - and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It 's nobody 's business but ours.” (2 Clinton) Not only does Clinton make an effort to slightly rebuild his reputation but, he victimizes himself by noting his intent to reclaim his family. Despite claiming to be “prepared to do whatever it takes”, he fails to communicate what he is going to do to reclaim his family, or do what 's right. Clinton proceeds repeats the fact that his life is private, even though he 's a president. “Even presidents have
Clinton appears to meet some of the criteria of a full apology; “...include acknowledging the offense, taking responsibility, and either offering a form of recompense, or assuring the offended parties it would not happen again.”(138) as Eisinger described, but he fails to clearly state his offense, offer recompense or assure offended parties it wouldn 't happen again. Back in 98’, Clinton stated “Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And that is why I am speaking to you tonight. As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. “(1) He made it clear at this point in his speech that he was questioned about his relationship with the Intern and he rhetorically and vaguely acknowledges the offense in an active tone. …show more content…
“Aaron Lazare identifies eight characteristics of what he calls a “pseudo-apology.” According to Lazare, a pseudo-apology 1) offers a vague and incomplete acknowledgement of the offense; 2) uses the passive voice; 3) makes the ostensible offense conditional; 4) questions whether the victim has been harmed or damaged; 5) minimizes the offense; 6) uses the empathic “I’m sorry” (e.g., “I’m sorry you were offended.”); 7) apologizes to the wrong party; or 8) apologizes for the wrong offense.;”(137 Eisinger)
The active tone makes him seem believable and softens up his speech but, that quickly changes and he ironically diminishes his apology furthermore by transforming it into a pseudo-apology/non-apology. The incomplete acknowledgement of his offence was the first clear sign this man is not actually apologetic. “While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.”(1 Clinton) By emphasizing that his decision to admit to his wrong doings were not by choice, that they were coerced, Clinton went to great lengths to minimize his offense and intentionally avoids explaining the situation. Minimizing an offense is a clear indicator of a non-apology, and the use of this shortly after the false acknowledgment his wrongs, wasn 't effective. Eisinger explains, “Not wanting to describe the offense may be understandable, but failing to acknowledge why an apology is necessary both defeats the apology’s purpose, and suggests that the wrongdoer may not appreciate what egregious acts he has committed.”(137) Clinton uses the non-apology by focusing the attention away from himself, and focusing it on his daughter, wife, and God. An explanation for this may be, “Given the limited number of scandalized politicians who utter apologies, a quantitative comparative analysis will not yield statistically significant results. However the limited evidence suggests that non-apologies potentially restore the reputation of the accused.”(139 Eisinger) The reference to his family could possibly help his reputation with the public by demonstrating that even though Clinton is under scrutiny for his distasteful actions with Monica Lewinski, he is still a family man”, who’s only concern is his relationship with his “wife, daughter, and God.” “Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most - my wife and our daughter - and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It 's nobody 's business but ours.” (2 Clinton) Not only does Clinton make an effort to slightly rebuild his reputation but, he victimizes himself by noting his intent to reclaim his family. Despite claiming to be “prepared to do whatever it takes”, he fails to communicate what he is going to do to reclaim his family, or do what 's right. Clinton proceeds repeats the fact that his life is private, even though he 's a president. “Even presidents have