Rhetorical Analysis Of The Political Non-Apology

2237 Words 9 Pages
Politicians have it rough. From making decisions to better their citizens, to creating campaigns to stay in office, politicians spend each day to better the lives of everyone as well as maintaining reputable social statuses. After all, the relationship between the people and the office holder determines whether he is worthy to hold this job. However, what happens if a certain action, event, or scandal jeopardizes their position? The answer is straightforward: an effective public political apology, like NJ Governor Chris Christie’s apology to the people after the Fort Lee incident. His apology made not only the affiliated but the whole country forgive him. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s apology for inappropriately insulting women did not …show more content…
According to “The Political Non-Apology”,writer Robert Eisinger stresses the importance of properly addressing the problem when he states, “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”(Eisinger 137). In other words, without stating in the apology the purpose, the audience questions why the suspected politician is apologizing in the first place. Not only is this a sign of cowardice, but the lack of addressing reveals to the people how unfit the politician is to hold office. Republican Chris Christie successfully heeds Eisinger’s warnings when he explains to the people, “There’s no doubt in my mind that the conduct ...showed a lack of respect for the appropriate role of government and for the people that were trusted to serve”(Christie 1). By stating ‘showed a lack of respect for the appropriate role’ Christie expresses that the current issue must be taken seriously. He realizes that the incident at Fort Lee is straining the alliance between the people and the government because of the increase mistrust and confusion. Although he does not go into detail about the event, the phrasing implies the …show more content…
According to Eisinger, “...[a non political apology] does not give an apology...the person neither accepts nor denies responsibility”(Eisinger 138). In his perspective a non political apology offers a vague explanation, which makes the viewers confused to the accuser 's stance. This correlates to Donald Trump’s apology, especially when the Leader-elect of the Free World confesses,“I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be something I am not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them.”(Trump 1). Although Trump states that he’s “said and done things he regrets” he does not take full responsibility for what he has committed. Rather, he downplays his role with the phrase, “decade-old video”. Ultimately, Trump is implying that his action was unimportant because the deed was committed in the past. This illustrates to the people the people that he fails to acknowledge the significance it had towards the offended, which reinforces that his public apology is ineffective. Therefore, to enhance his apology, Trump must follow Christie’s footsteps by telling the audience that he takes full responsibility for his wrong doing. By doing so, he will illustrate his responsibility to the viewers which will make his apology seem genuine. An effective apology should not be technical, but

Related Documents