ALPERN AT LARGE-I've long been a big fan of apologies--they open by far more doors than they close. Some of my closest friendships began with an apology on my part, with the offended party amazed and even touched by receiving an apology...which apparently is doggone hard to come by.
Too few people have the ability to apologize, and yet they are among the greatest tools available to shut down and even impress opposing parties.
We just had an American experience with a President who--based on appearances--chose to stay home and watch football instead of showing up in Paris with every other major world leader and decry terrorism.
There have been plenty of excuses (some better than others, some lousy and indefensible), but Presidential spokesman Josh Earnest was anything BUT earnest when he reported that it was a mistake for a higher-level Obama Administration official to not attend.
The missing element? An apology. There was no message from Earnest such as, "We did not realize that this rapidly-organized march was filled with so many world leaders, and that more than an ambassador was required to adequately show our support. We deeply support the French people, empathize with their pain and loss, and sincerely apologize for our lack of high-level representation. Vive la France!"
And how much more earnest than the statement from Earnest would it have been to have this delivered directly from President Obama's lips, and not just a spokesman, and live in front of the cameras.
Instead of a derisive rebuke from Secretary of State Kerry to those complaining about the lack of his or other high-level attendance, a better-received statement would be "we are busy, we are exhausted, and we are overextended, but on this issue we should have done better...and we're sorry. American support of France is unwavering and solid."
And that would have been that. Only the mega-partisan among us would have had much of a reason to complain. In fact, President Obama's ratings might have grown among an American electorate who desperately wants a brave and kind and caring leader in the White House.
Instead, it appears that the only apology Washington is truly willing to make is that they looked bad...which is hardly an apology at all.
(And for those of you reading this who are quick to metaphorically throw your own bodies in front of "your guy" to protect him and make ME the one with the problem, I thank you for proving my point.)
The lack of a Presidential apology is no less grievous than the lack of the economic and psychological impacts left by other foreign initiatives (Libya and Syria come to mind) and domestic smashmouth initiatives (an overly partisan and problematic Affordable Care Act, and executive quasi-amnesty of those living here illegally, come to mind).
The lack of a Presidential apology also comes on the heels of another President, George W. Bush, who lied and obfuscated and ignored his critics with respect to both domestic and foreign efforts surrounding the War on Terror.
President Barack H. Obama comes across as no less arrogant, egotistical and tyrannical than his predecessor by overreaching on personal freedoms and ruling like a king instead of a law-abiding President in the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, and the others who had strong beliefs...but never forgot that they were but a single man in a nation of other equally talented and brilliant individuals.
In fact, it could be argued that (for those who still love to blame former President G.W. Bush) President Obama is truly a disciple of his predecessor, despite his never-ending blaming and disparaging of Bush.
There were no apologies from President Bush on choosing Iraq over other foreign policy priorities, and over nation-building instead of replacing Saddam Hussein (which was the stated goal of American intervention before feature creep took over).
So why the lack of apologies? Is it personal arrogance, or is it a political reality (or commonly-perceived reality) that to apologize makes a President look weak?
More importantly, do we live in a reality (or commonly-perceived reality) where an apology emboldens the political opposition, instead of silencing the opposition with well-meant sincerity?
What would have happened if President George W. Bush had stated, "I am very sorry that the Iraq conflict has been so extensive, so costly and so complicated. This was certainly more than I expected, and while I think that withdrawing would only make our world situation worse, I want the American people to know that I both apologize for this unanticipated turn of events and will continue to fight and do what I think is best as events continue to evolve on the ground."
Conversely, what would have happened if former President Nixon--a truly arrogant man but a fighter for this nation who was both willing to concede a Presidential election to JFK to avoid tearing apart the nation, and was willing to resign to avoid tearing apart the nation--had just chosen to ignore the American People and stay in office?
There is no reason to apologize for or defend President Nixon's misdeeds, any more than there is the need to ignore his opening relations with China and Russia, ending the Vietnam War that he inherited, or staunchly defend Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Yet his resignation and accompanying farewell speech showed that he placed his nation above his own personal interests.
The response to his resignation? No forgiveness, and anger combined with a rewriting of history that lasts well beyond Nixon's death. For some reason, many view him as unforgivable--which is anyone's right...but the "lesson learned" for subsequent Presidents is to NEVER apologize, and NEVER take the fall, and NEVER let the opposition know you made an error no matter how understanding the American People would probably be.
Would Nixon have been more understood by the American People had he apologized early in the Watergate scandal, tried to make amends to an electorate who voted him in overwhelmingly for a second term of office, and moved on?
Would G.W. Bush have been more understood by the American People had he apologized for things going awry in Iraq, and then moving forward as he did to try to make things right?
Would President Obama have been more understood by the American People had he apologized for those who lost their health coverage because of the Affordable Care Act ("it's on me" is not the same as "I am genuinely sorry you cannot keep your doctors, as I previously and sincerely believed when this law was written")?
Perhaps, and perhaps the flaw is either a series of American Presidents who are either too arrogant to ever apologize for harm they inadvertently (or knowingly) caused, or have been advised to never apologize because it will hurt them, or perhaps because we as a nation do not accept apologies to those who sincerely and honestly renew and strengthen their ties to the American People.
Based on recent and ongoing events, it does not appear that we will ever see a well-meant and well-timed apology any time soon from this President, no matter how helpful and supportive such an action would be for an American People who increasingly lack faith in and respect for their elected leaders.
But it's always hoped--be it delusional, or accurate, or both--that a New Year, if not a new political era, can change this unfortunate and dehumanizing political dynamic.
(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at T[email protected] He also does regular commentary on the MarkIsler Radio Show on AM 870, and co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 13 Issue 5
Pub: Jan 16, 2015
