Speech of Apology

Here is a great and recent example of a brief and effective (I think) speech of apology, no matter that it's in print; it's still a speech. It offers lots of classroom possibilities for public speaking--comparing this one with Iacocca's classic speech apologizing for Chrysler's disconnecting odometers or with Bill Clinton's "apology" or estimating its effectiveness on different audiences. In the hybrid course it provides a useful connection between interpersonal and public speaking (something that's not always easy to make--between the interpersonal communication discussion of the apology and the public speaking discussion of special occasion speaking. And, of course, there's lots to discuss in terms of the media's role and effectiveness in presenting apologies like this.

John Edwards and the Affair

So, John Edwards admits to an extramarital affair. I don’t really object to the affair—after all, they are all adults and should be able to do as they wish. What I do object to is the lying and the negative effects this type of thing has on all political speeches and on the political scene generally. And of course he compounded the lie by repeatedly denying that he had this affair: “It’s completely untrue, it’s ridiculous.” He now denies that he is the father of Rielle Hunter’s baby. We’ll see when he goes on Maury :-). The fact that Edwards paid Hunter $114,000 to produce website documentaries for which she had no experience just adds one more piece of evidence for the popular conclusion of many that all politicians are liars and have only their own best interests in mind, certainly not those of the average citizen. Actually, I think we knew this when he joked about his $400 haircut; it was a clear indication that he was totally out of touch with real people and that he was concerned with one person, John Edwards. On the positive side, there are likely to be some interesting speeches of apology for study in public speaking.

Spitzer’s Speech of Apology, Again

Governor Spitzer—
If you want to apologize, you need to say, in clear and plain language, exactly what you did that you’re apologizing for. This would include every law you violated—for example, the attempt to hide the money trail and the interstate transportation of a prostitute. And, I’d like to know the source of the money you used to pay the call-girl service. I know you’re a multimillionaire but I want to make sure you didn’t use my tax money to pay for your sexual playtime. And I’d like to hear you say that you did in fact break the law and exactly how you violated your oath of office. And you certainly know exactly what these violations were. Of course, I know that by not saying this, you’re protecting yourself against prosecution. But, if you want to apologize, you need to admit what you did.
You also need to explain to the people exactly what you’re going to do to make up for what you’ve done, to repay the citizens of New York State for your betrayal. You and your family are millionaires many times over; you can start making reparations by donating your money to causes that would benefit the very people you betrayed. If you’re really apologetic, you’d want to make substantial reparations to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
I’d also like to know—though it’s probably not an essential element of the speech of apology—your mindset as you were so vigorously prosecuting prostitution when you yourself were part of it—to at least, it seems, $80,000. I’d like to know where you got the colossal arrogance that told you that you could engage in illegal behavior and at the same time prosecute those who did no more than you were doing. I’d like to hear you say that you deserve no better treatment than you gave to people who committed similar crimes.

Spitzer and the Speech of Apology

So, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer gave a speech of “apology” for paying for sex (reportedly, $4300) with a call girl. Funny thing was, he really didn’t apologize. The media are calling this a speech of apology because he apologized to his family and the residents of NY. But, he never said what he was apologizing for, which surely must be one of the essential elements of the speech of apology.
Let me clarify: Personally, I see no reason why prostitution should not be legal and if Spitzer wanted to visit a call girl, as far as I’m concerned, that’s fine and should be of no concern to the government. But, that is not the current law and certainly not the law that Spitzer swore to uphold. What is so reprehensible and so underhanded is that he presented himself as “holier than thou,” as a loving and devoted husband, and as a crusader who had these high ethical standards but at the same time never held himself accountable to the same standards. In fact, he not only committed a criminal act, he also violated his oath of office by engaging in behavior he knew to be unlawful. So far, no charges have been filed against Spitzer and there is no certainty that he will be held accountable or even forced to resign. If other politicians are involved in this same or similar call girl operation—and there seems reason to assume this, after all, it is based in D.C. and who else has the money to pay $1500 an hour for sex?—then they will likely make light of this and help Spitzer plea bargain, just in case they too are implicated.
What makes this speech of “apology” even more ludicrous is that he had the nerve to espouse ethical principles in this speech, as if he were in a position to teach others morality. Politics, Spitzer said, “is about ideas, the public good, and doing what is best for the State of New York.” Is he implying that he has been doing this or that he even tried to do it?
Toward the end of this speech he said, “I will not be taking questions.” Now, here is something the media and all persons interested in the ethics of communication should question. If he admitted to wrongdoing—as he did—then he should have to answer questions. After all, he’s a public official and is accountable to the people. I’m not suggesting that this should be a rule or a law but rather than we should come to expect a politician to answer questions; it should be the norm in a free democracy and when that norm is violated, it should signal an alarm.
And Mrs. Spitzer—just like Mrs. Craig, Mrs. McGreevy, and (let’s not forget) Mrs. Clinton before her—stood by her man, giving credibility to someone who held others to standards that he was above following himself. Spitzer not only needs to resign; he needs to be indicted and convicted.