The art of the non-apology

John Edwards' new blogmistresses demonstrate how to give the appearance of an apology without actually apologizing...

-----------------------------------

We've all seen it.  We've all done it - at least when we were kids.  That "go tell Joey you're sorry" ritual where you went, shook hands, and verbalized the words "I'm sorry" while conveying very clearly to Joey that you actually wished he’d fall headlong into a nest of fire ants.  This, of course, would be followed by the obligatory parental admonishment of "No, say it like you mean it," which would result in yet another enunciation of the two words with only slightly less contempt than previously.  

It's known as the non-apology. 

With adults, it takes on a slightly different form.  It invariably starts with the word if - as in "If I've done anything to offend you..."

With the possible exception of "Not tonight dear, I have a headache," I don’t think there are less satisfying words in the English language.

Now, for proper effect, the if is usually followed by words like "truly sorry" and "deeply regret" along with a suitably somber tone throughout.  However, to the offended party, make no mistake: the most important word is the initial one, and when it consists of if, the words that follow it, however many or few, have been essentially rendered null and void.

There are many messages that the "If I've done anything to offend you..." clause can convey.  Here are a few of the more popular ones:

A variation on this basic theme is to preface the apology with, or embed within the apology, the words "it was never my intention to (hurt, offend, frighten, etc.) anyone."  This tactic is also known by its more technical name: lying.

To see what these look like in practice, one need look no further than Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, the two recently hired and controversy-ridden bloggers enlisted by John Edwards to head up the online aspects of his presidential campaign. 

In a previous post, I discussed their distinctly gag-inducing blend of hypocrisy, intolerance, hate, vulgarity, radicalism, and cluelessness.  Not surprisingly, they managed to offend several million people, not the least of whom was Edwards himself who had this to say in a written statement:

"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me.  It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor or anything else."

Enter the non-apology.  Ms. McEwan, ever resourceful, managed to incorporate not one of my above-outlined tactics, but both of them in a single sentence:

"It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way."

Ms. Marcotte, not to be outdone, used two entire sentences to convey similar sentiments.  Further, in a stunning display of constitutional fluency, she assures us that she does, in fact, support the First Ammendment.  How positively magnanimous of her:

"My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics.  Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact."

Now let me get this straight.  These gals post blogs for the express purpose of making political commentary.  Their posts routinely receive dozens, if not hundreds, of comments, both favorable and not.  They pride themselves on their savvy with current political events and their ability to offer commentary.  And it wasn't their intention to offend?  They seriously ask "if" someone was offended? 

I've got an idea: Let's send these two into a crowded room and have them start swinging a baseball bat.  When the inevitable concussions, broken noses, chipped teeth, and worse ensue from their actions, they can stand before the judge and claim that it was "never their intention to hurt someone."  Uh huh.  You go girls.  They can also turn to the assembled ranks of bandaged and bloodied faces in the courtroom and say "if we managed to injure any of you..."  After the judge quells the riot, he'll promptly send our two clowns for a psychiactric evaluation. 

That's exactly what we've got here:  Twin sluggers with blogs instead of baseball bats.  Sure they've got the right to say what they want - I'm as familiar with the First Amendment as the next person.  But I've also got the right to point out their absolute stupidity at pretending they can't distinguish whether a large number of people would find their remarks deliberately offensive and inflammatory. 

Contrition from these two?  Hardly.  Frankly, I don't think it's in their DNA.  Genuine apologies?  Not even close.  But let's give credit where credit is due - when it comes to the art of non-apologies, Edwards has settled for nothing less than truly world-class talent.