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; …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
Clinton appears to meet some of the criteria of a full apology; …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