The New Apology

Well, well. So Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the man in charge of the Afghanistan War (at 8 1/2 years and counting, it's like the "Cats" of American military adventures), has been called back to Washington following news that McChrystal bad-mouthed the White House, his commander in chief, and American diplomacy in the latest issue of Rolling Stone.

No doubt apologies will be demanded and apologies offered.

But apologia is tricky stuff. For a couple of millennia, the apology was understood to be an expression of regret for wrongdoing, although it could also be a defense of one's actions by way of explanation (on the latter, check your Socrates, or your Gen. George S. Patton).

In modern public discourse, though, a third sense of apology is sucking all the rhetorical oxygen away from the original two.

The New Apology doesn't mean "I regret my action and the harm it's caused others."

It doesn't mean "I undertake never to do that again."

And it absolutely doesn't mean "I was wrong."

To the extent that it actually means anything, the New Apology can mean:

"I'm sorry -- that you didn't like it when you found out I disrespected you, which I didn't think you would."

Or:

"I'm sorry -- that you're choosing to make a BFD out of this instead of giving me another free pass."

Or:

"I'm sorry -- that some reporter was so unprofessional as to quote my remarks accurately, completely, and in context."

Or:

"I'm sorry -- that now I'll have to spend time publicly humbling myself so that I'll be allowed to continue privately abasing those who deserve my loyalty and respect."

Or:

"I'm sorry -- that I'll have to start covering my tracks more carefully in the future when I engage in double-dealing or back-stabbing."

Calling what McChrystal is undoubtedly going to say next "an apology" as we normally use that word is like saying that "The Biggest Loser" is about "reality." Or that "Canadian bacon" is either "Canadian" or "bacon." It really says more about how careless we are with our language than it does about McChrystal's motives.

Let's face it: The Afghanistan War isn't getting anywhere, which means that McCrystal, for all his preening and posturing --

"I'd rather have my ass kicked by a roomful of people than go out to this dinner," McChrystal says.

He pauses a beat.

"Unfortunately," he adds, "no one in this room could do it."

With that, he's out the door.

-- is hardly the indispensable man. Why waste time on the New Apology kabuki?

Let's just skip that step entirely. Forget about any apology, Old or New. Sack him, let him collect his pension while he goes to work for a defense contractor, watch as his inevitable "Screw me? Screw you!" payback memoir gets remaindered within six months, and let's all move on.

Conservatives and the media: The lonely burden of being right

And I was right; although it was so easy I probably shouldn't brag.

Here's the first of "four rules of American politics to which all sides (Republicans, Democrats, and media) apparently agree," which I posted two weeks ago:

1. Anything that a Democrat says about a Republican that is true is automatic ground to demand an apology from the Democrat.

And here are the solemn, even shocked scribes of CNN proving me absolutely right last night:

Except, of course, that Grayson apparently didn't get the memo.

Go figure.

The unforgiving minute

Four rules of American politics to which all sides (Republicans, Democrats, and media) apparently agree:

1. Anything that a Democrat says about a Republican that is true is automatic grounds to demand an apology from the Democrat.


2. Anything that a Democrat says or does that a Republican has already said or done is automatic grounds to demand an apology from the Democrat.


3. No Republican is ever required to apologize for or distance him/herself from the inappropriate actions of anyone associated with their party base, however closely, but Democrats must always apologize for or distance themselves from the actions of anyone associated with their party base, however remotely. (This is also referred to as the 'Sister Souldjah Principle' or, as Digby calls it, 'Punch a Hippie.')


4. Any black Democrat is automatically answerable for the behavior of any other black person anywhere in the world at any time.

Minute's up.

Conservative is to Republican Party as Parasite is to Host

This is truly amazing.

The Bush administration was famous for enforcing loyalty among its people (while Junior was hanging out at the Bush 41 White House between jobs, his job was loyalty enforcer; ask former White House Chief of Staff John Sununu). The sight of someone going off the reservation on Friday, usually by telling the truth about inner administration goings-on, only to have them groveling back to apologize by Monday, was pretty common.

And as unpleasant as it was to watch, it's still arguably legitimate for a sitting president to zealously enforce his code of personal loyalty among his people--it's sick, but even carried to Bush's extremes at least it makes a kind of sick sense. It's not the sort of environment I (or most sane people, I'd think) would want to work in, but certainly everyone involved knew the rules going in.

But when the elected (sort of) head of the party has to apologize to a radio host for calling him out--on charges that no one really disputes--that's something else altogether.

I had emailed longtime p3 correspondent Doctor TV yesterday about the ongoing spat between RNC head Michael Steele and radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh, shortly after Limbaugh called for the former's head (or other body parts) at CPAC. If Steele actually apologizes, I wrote, I'll be dumbfounded.

Exactly 10 minutes later, Doctor TV wrote me back with the words, "Prepare to be dumbfounded."

Twenty-four hours later, my jaw is still sagging on that one. I realize that Steele became head of the RNC much the way Claw-Claw-Claudius became emperor of Rome (i.e., less because of acknowledged talent than because all the more likely candidates were dead, by their own hand or someone else's). But wasn't there one person around Steele smart enough to remind him that Limbaugh, for whatever commercial clout he still has, does not sign Steele's paychecks?

Whatever else it proves, this sorry incident demonstrates that "Republican" and "conservative" were never equivalent terms--at least not in the sense of "movement conservative." It's more like: "Conservative" is to "Republican Party" as "Parasite" is to "Host."

I’m reminded of that great story told by Richard ("Nixonland") Perlstein:

Republicans are different from conservatives: that was one of the first lessons I learned when I started interviewing YAFers. I learned it making small talk with conservative publisher Jameson Campaigne, in Ottawa, Illinois, when I asked him if he golfed. He said something like: "Are you kidding? I'm a conservative, not a Republican."

Of course, this handed the Democratic leadership another free shot that they're happily taking advantage of (although not everyone on the left agrees with the wisdom of making Rush the face of the GOP). Still, when 95% of the participants at CPAC are against something that 67% of Americans support--and that something is Obama's job performance so far--it's hard not to conclude that the Republican party went to bed with conservatives and woke up with fleas.

There are rumors that some highly-placed Republicans have attacked Steele for caving to Limbaugh but, significantly, none of them wants their name printed.

At this point, if the federal election laws and Congressional rules that lock our two-party system in place disappeared tonight, the national Republican Party as it now stands would probably be gone by lunch tomorrow. It wouldn't even be a regional party dug in throughout the old Confederacy. At best it would be scattered remnants working out a deal to share office space with the LaRouche party or the Constitution Party.

Thanks to its partnership with radical right, the GOP is well on its way to becoming just a notional legal entity that the movement conservatives have co-opted for their political convenience--if it's not already there.

How quickly we arrived at this point from Rove's "permanent Republican majority," and what a sad spectacle it has become.

Annotated apology

We would like to apologize for the way in which politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are concerned more with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital, social problems of today, nor indeed to we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby ulcerous little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across.

Monty Python's Flying Circus, 1972

Sorry--the apology trend seems to be heading the other way lately

Last spring it seemed that tout le monde was demanding an apology from someone for something:

I'm designating this particular phenomenon Nothstine's Corollary to Kinsley's Law of Gaffes: No one expects a politician to apologize for telling a lie, but they will often demand an apology for telling the truth.

I also asked a question back then that I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to:

By the way--am I the only one in America who found it very, very odd that every news or entertainment source reporting on this story, including those calling for his head, has made a specific point of repeating the three-word phrase that caused such offense and finally cost him his job? What--is it only offensive when Imus says it?

Apparently it is, since an editorial in this morning's Oregonian does it again. I suppose it hangs on some sort of speech-act theoretical distinction between "use" and "reference."

But back to my point: If everyone was preemptively demanding apologies from everyone last April, by late summer the trend seems to be reversing, and people are stepping forward to preemptively insist they won't be apologizing for anything.

For example, in a move that I've predicted will come back to haunt him before next November, Oregon's junior senator recently claimed he was "not here to make any apologies" for his as-yet-completely explained involvement in the Klamath basin salmon kill-off of 2002.

And now Think Progress reports that the NYTimes' Thomas Friedman--staunch contemporaneous supporter of the Iraq invasion and namesake of the eponymous "Friedman Unit"--made a similar pronoucement:

As Iraq has deteriorated, Friedman has criticized Bush’s execution of the war and has even called for “disengagement” himself. Yet, he remains steadfast in his initial war support. On the Charlie Rose show yesterday, Friedman stated, “I’m not going to apologize” for his lofty dreams of democratization in the Middle East, alleging that Iraqis “craved” regime change.

Kind of makes you wonder: What will public figures be refusing to apologize for next?

Giving apologia a bad name

I've kvetched before about the faddish love of apologies--demanding them from others, not necessarily delivering them oneself--that's taken over the pop/political scene in recent years.

Here's a specimen recently added to my collection:

Senator McCain, who, unlike Senator Clinton, fervently supports the war and the surge, is morbidly aware of his predicament. This once-ebullient politician has been off his game since a conspicuously listless January "Meet the Press" appearance; on Thursday, he had to publicly apologize after telling David Letterman, in an unguarded moment of genuine straight talk, that American lives were being "wasted" in Iraq. (Barack Obama had already spoken the same truth and given the same pro forma apology.)

I'm designating this particular phenomenon Nothstine's Corollary to Kinsley's Law of Gaffes: No one expects a politician to apologize for telling a lie, but they will often demand an apology for telling the truth.

This was, by any measure, a bad week for the apology as a rhetorical genre. First, power-brokering, bigoted sextagenarian Don Imus coughed up this sad 21-second hairball of an apology:

(By the way--am I the only one in America who found it very, very odd that every news or entertainment source reporting on this story, including those calling for his head, has made a specific point of repeating the three-word phrase that caused such offense and finally cost him his job? What--is it only offensive when Imus says it?)

Imus later groused that, having apologized, he was in no mood to apologize further. No word if he expressed regret and contrition for his refusal to express regret and contrition, although I'm certain someone asked.

Still, however insincere and unconvincing (and, ultimately, ineffective) his apology, at least Imus took a shot at it.

But from the ungracious Nancy Grace, not so much as a sausage of remorse:

Way to go, Nance. Nothing says "mea culpa" like a last-minute guest host.

(Almost forgot: TDS screen shot via Crooks and Liars. Sorry.)