Features

Richard Clarke’s recent televised apology during the commission investigating 9/11 was a rarity in public American life. It not often that a high ranking public leader takes responsibility for the failure to protect the American people and for the ultimate disaster of 9/11. The issue, however, goes way beyond 9/11. It speaks about our inability to act humanely and decently in a variety of situations. No one, especially our leaders, wants to be seen as “weak.” Somehow we’ve come to confuse apology with weakness. The myth is that real men and women do not make large and serious mistakes, and that the effort to deal with these errors will only compound the sin. For a variety of reasons the act of apology is taboo. It has been in serious disrepute for as long as we can remember. 

We believe that an apology is a nettlesome can of worms that can only lead to more problems. We act as though it is a prelude to public humiliation and that it will invite a full-fledged attack by political and other opponents. Our collective attitude has become, “My God, never let your guard down, who knows where it may all end!” So, instead we have developed our own macho ethic, wherein you hang tough, you say little or nothing, and you hope and pray it will all pass quickly. When horrific situations do occur, and the buck cannot be passed, we aim for a passive apology with euphemisms in the third person, such as “mistakes were made, … or…serious errors of judgment occurred…” By removing ourselves to the passive voice we think we will deflect the anticipated harsh retribution, which will follow a direct and personal apology. 

This dodging of personal responsibility comes at a very large price. We frankly do not expect our leaders, let alone one another, to act honestly or decently when the stakes or consequences are high. Our leaders regularly set a very low bar for the admission of blame or error. Every manner of excuse, and equivocation has become the norm. When our leaders are exposed for lying, cheating and stealing it is handled not with apology, but with good public relations. High-priced consultants are at the service of people in public life who have been somehow disgraced, or caught with their hand in the till. 

Like it or not, this is the norm. 

Politicians are, of course, the most notorious dodgers of apology, to the point that we don’t take them seriously. They regularly pollute our airwaves. It would be bad enough, however, if it were limited to our politicians, but unfortunately it is not. 

Similarly, we routinely expect bad behavior and the denial of responsibility by Wall Street and corporate moguls. In these highly paid regions of American life there is a long-standing taboo on telling the truth. But how about the priests who committed sexual abuse of minors, and much of their religious hierarchy who refused to fully accept responsibility for the abuse of thousands of vulnerable individuals over a 30-year period, perhaps longer. Is even this shocking? Not really. Nothing shocks us anymore. 

The denial of responsibility is deeply woven into the fabric of American life. We expect lies because we cannot accept the simple truth—that the good people as well as the bad ones are very imperfect, and often fail miserably despite good intentions or valiant efforts. Ultimately, we are probably as much to blame as our leaders for the decline of public honesty. Our unrealistic demands for perfection help create the need for their evasions and their lies. The ethic of the sacrificial lamb is also certainly part of the problem. We demand that someone must inevitably take the blame. Heads will certainly roll, and it's better if it’s not mine!  

In a better society there might be fewer guillotines and more encouragement of truth. The guilty, no matter what the deed, might be tried or publicly admonished without being banished to Siberia or the equivalent. We might relish the notion that people can learn from large mistakes, and that taking responsibility might be the first step in that process. A businessman once told me that one of his loyal employees made a mistake that cost the firm $50,000. He said, “I could let him go but I know him to be an honest man who is truly remorseful. He has learned painfully from this mistake and he is now worth $50,000 more to me.” Is this attitude too idealistic? 

One of the roots of the problem is that we see serious errors and mistakes as a revelation of bad character. This is not necessarily true. It is the cover-ups and deceptions which follow these mistakes, that are in fact, not just criminal, but are far more damaging and toxic to our public life. And this pollution is pervasive.  

On a local level we have a former chancellor of the Oakland schools, Dennis Chaconas. He is basically a good man who never really took responsibility for a devastating million-dollar deficit that recently occurred under his watch. Never mind all of the excuses and evasions—it happened here in Oakland and this man has never fully apologized to the community. I believe he has just won election to another local public office. Has he learned from his mistakes? Probably not. Sadly, he, like most others was raised and trained in a system whereby an apology is seen as "unmanly" and the kiss of death.  

Apology is not only good for the soul; it’s crucial for public life. You can barely count on the fingers of one hand the instances of direct and honest apology in public life. Whatever else you may think of Richard Clarke he has set in motion an opportunity to reconsider the positive contributions of an honest apology. By admitting fault and apologizing he has shamed his superiors. If only others would follow suit and accept responsibility for their deeds—who knows where it could all end? 

George Cohen is a psychotherapist and the author of How To Test and Improve Your Mental Health (Prima Publishing, 1994). He has also written for the Christian Science Monitor and the Utne Reader.R