A litany of apologies have appeared
in the news lately. From David Letterman’s bad joke about Sarah Palin’s
daughter, to Minister Raitt’s remarks about the sexiness of nuclear isotopes,
to the US apology
for slavery -- there isn’t a day that goes by without something in the news of
an athlete, politician, corporation or public figure offering some kind of mea
culpa.
The
most recent and standout of these is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford,
whose extra-marital affair made headlines when he inexplicably disappeared for
a week to travel to Buenos Aires to visit his paramour.
His “apology” was a dreadful
four-minute incoherent babble that he seemed to want to pass off as an
emotional and heartfelt statement of contrition. Some may decide to grant him
forgiveness, reasoning that whether a person is forgiven isn’t determined by
the quality of their apology.
Sanford’s
apology was, in fact, wanting, opportunistic, and phony. I am loath to judge
what is in a man’s heart, since that is impossible to know. But we can judge
the words of an apology and the behaviour that surrounds it.
The basic formula for what I call a
“kosher apology” is the ESP Rule: it must be expeditious, specific, and promise
through words and actions never to repeat the misdeeds. This is based on the
traditions of Judaism and the commentaries of the Jewish sages throughout the
millennia. These longstanding philosophies give us a framework for how to make
amends properly.
As for “expeditious,” Sanford’s
apology follows the “I’m sorry I was caught” apology plan. Had he apologized
when his conscience bothered him, and then admitted his wrongdoing soon after
the problem arose, his apology would hold more weight. Like in the judicial
system, immediately stepping forward to plead guilty instead of waiting for
lawyers to prove it in court, punishes less those with a sense of shame. An
apology offered well into the affair, after deceiving his staff and the state,
with an attempt to court public opinion and save his job after being found out,
has more to do with political maneuvering than a sincere expression of regret.
This wasn’t the first time he was caught. In
January, his wife discovered a letter from the woman in Argentina.
When accosted with it, Sanford
apologized to his wife. Yet, he continued his wrong behaviour, and was forced
to apologize again, publicly, last week. This breaks the rule about making a
promise not to make the same mistakes again.
“The bottom line is this: I've been unfaithful to my
wife… I’m committed to getting my heart right. We’ve been working through this
thing for about the last five months.” There comes a point when a simple
apology, how ever sincere, just won’t do anymore. After repeating the wrong, he
must show his remorse. Then, over
time, trust is rebuilt.
Whatever he and his wife decide to do with their
relationship is ultimately between them. It’s also the people of South
Carolina, the Republican Party who he represents, and
his staff to whom he owes a genuine, immense mea culpa. An apology for a
serious betrayal isn’t just confessing what you’ve done. It’s showing intent to repent. There’s no point otherwise. Just
saying “sorry” and “I apologize” does not make a good apology.
There is an air of suspicion about Sanford
coming forward with his statement. He did not apologize out of guilt; he was
essentially made to, like Governor Eliot Spitzer. Naturally, he didn’t have to apologize at all. He could have
been evasive, or fruitlessly denied the charges. Perhaps people feel more
empathy for him for his stepping forward. The other options would have been far
more damning to his career and reputation.
Making an apology is not like
repeating cookie-cutter wedding vows, or taking an oath of office from an
official script. The formulaic words are less important than what occurs
afterward. Equally, for breaking wedding vows, and breaking the oath of office,
words of contrition cannot flip the rewind switch. His actions henceforth
determine the sincerity of his apology. The apology itself must outline a plan
of repentance; it must be followed up with concrete actions in order to
demonstrate that he understands the seriousness of the offenses.
He alluded to this when he spoke
about rebuilding trust with the people of South Carolina: “…so that means me
going one by one and town by town to talk to a lot of old friends across this
state in what I've done and indeed asking their forgiveness…”
Now he must follow through with
that pledge, and truly show that he realizes that not only was the affair
wrong, but so was lying about his whereabouts and being 20 hours by plane away
from his state.
True,
he resigned as head of the Republican Governors Association, a prudent move
given how he tainted that important position. More prudent still, is removing
himself before he was removed. His actions have had a domino effect on the
Republican Party, which has appeared hypocritical, adding to its woes.
Resigning was an expected, but insufficient, part of his reparations to the
Governor’s office, and the Party.
The Republican Party, which has
already suffered from a number of sexual scandals, may want to remove him
entirely, and if he decides to run for re-election it ought to be as an
independent candidate.
As for being “specific,” he mentioned the betrayal
of his marriage, and his unauthorized travel. More details – the name of the
woman, the number of times he’s flown to meet her, why he tried to do it – are
not necessary. Tawdry details are not relevant to a kosher apology, and can
even lessen the quality of it. An important yardstick for specificity is
whether a person who isn’t familiar with the case knows what’s being apologized
for. He did make references to his offenses. “I would also like to apologize to
my staff… I let them down by creating a fiction with regard to where I was
going,” he said.
Sanford
held a televised meeting of his cabinet two days after his initial statement,
during which he offered another apology-statement. “I remain committed to
rebuilding the trust that has been committed to me over the next 18 months, and
it is my hope that I am able to follow the example set by David in Bible - who
after his fall from grace humbly refocused on the work at hand.” There’s a lot
of talk about regaining trust, but the details remain vague about how this will
be done. One hopes that in coming days Sanford will post on his website the
kinds of things he will do for the people of South Carolina to make up for his
transgressions. Will it be business as usual in the Governor’s office, with the
hope that on Election Day people will have forgotten? Or will he go above and
beyond the call of duty to make sure, next year this time, the state and his
staff know he made efforts to reconcile with them?
These questions can’t be answered
by an examination of Sanford’s
apology alone – what is needed is an examination of his words and deeds in the
near future, to see if he really meant what he said, and that he intends to
work for forgiveness and make amends.
