Sam Bridges
When an apology...well...isn't
By Sam Bridges
On Tuesday, Senator Dick Durbin, D-Ill, attempted to apologize from the Senate floor for disparaging remarks he made about the treatment of detainees at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The week before, he had compared their treatment to the truly horrendous inhumanities of Nazis, Soviet gulags, and Cambodia's Pol Pot. As part of this "apology," Durbin stated that, "More than most people, a senator lives by his words...occasionally words fail us, occasionally we will fail words." I have to agree with this statement, but it may even be more applicable to Durbin's apology than it is to his original disparaging remarks.
For the bulk of his "apology," Durbin said, "I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy. I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apology." He even occasionally choked on his words.
Blaming a "loud, continuous drumbeat of misinformation that was being broadcast and printed" from "the right-wing media" for saying that he had "been insulting men and women in uniform," Durbin also said, "Nothing could be further from truth." Really? In your attempt to attack the Bush administration, insulting the men and women in uniform is precisely what you did, Senator Durbin.
Some have suggested that his "apology" clearly indicated that he considered his previous remarks an error because he also said, "After reading the horrible details in that memo which characterized the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, I then, on my own, my own words, made some characterizations about that memo ... I have come to understand that was a very poor choice of words." However, this is obviously and simply regret for his choice of words, not sorrow for his overall vilification.
The typical apology in our culture has become conditional and passively accusatory, and Dick Durbin's is only the most recent example. Instead of accepting full responsibility for their actions and words, people...especially those in prominent positions...begin their pseudo-apology with something like, "If my words offended anyone, I'm sorry." So not only is their apology completely conditional on the emotions evoked in their original audience, the responsibility for the offense is now shared with those who were offended!
In Scripture, David gives a clear example of a true apology, which is in direct opposition to this type of conditional, accusatory, pseudo-apology prevalent in our culture. While I'm certainly not suggesting that words spoken on the floor of the U.S. Senate are equivalent to sexual sin, murder, and subsequent lies to cover them up, our country and culture could stand to learn much from David's response which included acceptance of his sole responsibility, an attitude of profound repentance, and an endless desire for forgiveness. Psalm 51 is a poignant prayer where David pleads for forgiveness and restoration.
For purposes of comparison, I looked back in news archives from a couple of years ago to the time when Trent Lott, who was the Senate majority leader at the time, had made some unfortunate statements with racial connotations during a birthday fête for Strom Thurmond, the ancient Senator from South Carolina. I couldn't remember the details of the days following Lott's remarks, but I had hoped to find that he had offered a clear, definite apology. But alas, it was not to be. His attempts at an "apology" were as convoluted, misguided, pathetic, and pseudo-apologetic as Durbin's...perhaps even more so.
The end result is that such an "apology" is really no apology at all. Furthermore, we are so accustomed to hearing this type of pseudo-apology that it has begun to sound genuine to our jaded ears.
Senator Durbin, I wish we could say, "Apology accepted." I wish we could give the benefit of the doubt in this case. But it just isn't warranted. So instead, regardless of what your politically-motivated peers might say, gushing that your apology was so genuine and heartfelt, the most the American public should say is, "Non-apology not accepted."
© Sam Bridges
On Tuesday, Senator Dick Durbin, D-Ill, attempted to apologize from the Senate floor for disparaging remarks he made about the treatment of detainees at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The week before, he had compared their treatment to the truly horrendous inhumanities of Nazis, Soviet gulags, and Cambodia's Pol Pot. As part of this "apology," Durbin stated that, "More than most people, a senator lives by his words...occasionally words fail us, occasionally we will fail words." I have to agree with this statement, but it may even be more applicable to Durbin's apology than it is to his original disparaging remarks.
For the bulk of his "apology," Durbin said, "I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy. I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apology." He even occasionally choked on his words.
Blaming a "loud, continuous drumbeat of misinformation that was being broadcast and printed" from "the right-wing media" for saying that he had "been insulting men and women in uniform," Durbin also said, "Nothing could be further from truth." Really? In your attempt to attack the Bush administration, insulting the men and women in uniform is precisely what you did, Senator Durbin.
Some have suggested that his "apology" clearly indicated that he considered his previous remarks an error because he also said, "After reading the horrible details in that memo which characterized the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, I then, on my own, my own words, made some characterizations about that memo ... I have come to understand that was a very poor choice of words." However, this is obviously and simply regret for his choice of words, not sorrow for his overall vilification.
The typical apology in our culture has become conditional and passively accusatory, and Dick Durbin's is only the most recent example. Instead of accepting full responsibility for their actions and words, people...especially those in prominent positions...begin their pseudo-apology with something like, "If my words offended anyone, I'm sorry." So not only is their apology completely conditional on the emotions evoked in their original audience, the responsibility for the offense is now shared with those who were offended!
In Scripture, David gives a clear example of a true apology, which is in direct opposition to this type of conditional, accusatory, pseudo-apology prevalent in our culture. While I'm certainly not suggesting that words spoken on the floor of the U.S. Senate are equivalent to sexual sin, murder, and subsequent lies to cover them up, our country and culture could stand to learn much from David's response which included acceptance of his sole responsibility, an attitude of profound repentance, and an endless desire for forgiveness. Psalm 51 is a poignant prayer where David pleads for forgiveness and restoration.
For purposes of comparison, I looked back in news archives from a couple of years ago to the time when Trent Lott, who was the Senate majority leader at the time, had made some unfortunate statements with racial connotations during a birthday fête for Strom Thurmond, the ancient Senator from South Carolina. I couldn't remember the details of the days following Lott's remarks, but I had hoped to find that he had offered a clear, definite apology. But alas, it was not to be. His attempts at an "apology" were as convoluted, misguided, pathetic, and pseudo-apologetic as Durbin's...perhaps even more so.
The end result is that such an "apology" is really no apology at all. Furthermore, we are so accustomed to hearing this type of pseudo-apology that it has begun to sound genuine to our jaded ears.
Senator Durbin, I wish we could say, "Apology accepted." I wish we could give the benefit of the doubt in this case. But it just isn't warranted. So instead, regardless of what your politically-motivated peers might say, gushing that your apology was so genuine and heartfelt, the most the American public should say is, "Non-apology not accepted."
© Sam Bridges
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
