Although my upkeep of Club Apologia has been shameful in recent months, as a Packers fan, I just had to take a break from end-of-the-semester tasks to welcome Dallas Cowboys star receiver Dez Bryant to the club. After the Pack rallied from a 26-3 halftime deficit and were 1:21 away from defeating Dallas 37-36 to keep alive their division crown hopes, Bryant walked off the field and to the locker room in AT&T Stadium. As most sports fans know, that's just not done--you stay with your team on the field until the game is over, for a variety of reasons.
Yesterday, Bryant addressed the criticism in the linked video, admitting he was "wrong" but explaining: "I was very emotional. I cried when I got into the locker room. I didn't want to show that stuff on the sideline." While that type of behavior no doubt would have gotten him booted from the Rockford Peaches, I had hoped that we had come farther on the issue of emotion in professional football. Surely, Merlin Olson and Brett Favre had shattered those "no tears" gridiron stereotypes long ago. So come on, Dez, it's 2013--just let it out, man.
Game highlights, including Bryant's walk-off, can be found here. Go Pack!
Okay, Club Apologia has been on summer vacation but I couldn't resist this rather insignificant piece of apologia history in light of some current goings-on. With Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, and Anthony Weiner all attempting complicated political comebacks from tawdry sex affairs, here's an example of a public figure simply apologizing and then shuffling back to life as a quasi-celebrity. In 2006, reports emerged that Hamptons architect Peter Cook, 47, the husband of supermodel Christie Brinkley, had an affair with an 18-year old employee at Cook's firm.
Seven years ago today, Cook, through his attorney, engaged in full-on mortification strategy. As reported here, Cook stated: "I'm sorry. I'm contrite. I'm stupid. Foolish. No excuse. I love my wife." Cook's lawyer added that, if Brinkley chose divorce, "she could have whatever she wants." It's kind of nice to remember that some people do take the route of direct responsibility. I mean, it didn't work--Cook and Brinkley divorced two years later, the proceedings were quite contentious, and, just last year, things were very much on the low road between these two, as reported here. So...what was my point again...? Oh yeah, I'm on summer vacation...
What was the deal? Two weeks after victory in the Republican primary, U.S. Representative Mark Souder of Indiana's third congressional district stunned the Hoosier state by announcing his resignation from Congress and withdrawal from his re-election campaign. Rumors had been circulating in political circles for months about Souder's involvement with part time staffer Tracy Jackson. The scandal finally came to light in May 2010 when Souder's chief of staff confronted him about the rumors, leading the staunch conservative to admit his infidelity. Six days later, Souder went public.
What did he say? A transcript of Souder's brief public statement, delivered three years ago today, can be found here. In the video of the speech above, the congressman does go off script a few times, most notably when he explains why his wife is not standing with him at the announcement.
How did he do? For a short speech, there's a lot here to deal with. First, Souder describes the affair as a "mutual relationship"? Huh? He really could use some help from one of our regulars Mark Sanford when it comes to waxing poetic about one's illicit passion so that it doesn't sound like a contract clause.
On a more substantive level, well, it's still not that great. Granted, it's a resignation speech, so no vigorous or creative self-defense is expected. Still, even a resignation speech should try to present the speaker in the best light possible under the circumstances. The address likely will remain the public's dominant memory of the accused and should not undermine a possible comeback down the road. In his public statement, Souder attempts two reasonable strategies: mortification strategy (apologize, seeking forgiveness, and accepting responsibility) and identification strategy (emphasizing similarities between the accused and the audience). Regarding the former, the congressman confesses: "I have sinned against God, my wife, and my family," "The error is mine and I should bear the responsibility," and "I am so ashamed to have hurt those I love and I am so sorry to have let so many friends down." He also identifies with the audience throughout the short speech, reminding the people of the third district of the bond he shares with them (his family had lived in the area for 160 years, he had been elected by the district's voters eight times, etc.). Near the speech's end, Souder returns to this theme: "I love this area. This is my home. It has been such an honor to serve you for sixteen years. My family and I have given our all for this area." If Souder planned to maintain his career and community in northeastern Indiana (and it sounded as though he did), it makes sense to hit these notes and try to win back those closest to him. Although one could also argue that pursuing an identification strategy when you're fresh off admitting immoral behavior may fall flat.
Of more concern is that Souder didn't stop there. He trots out a dubious and hypocritical provocation strategy: "It has been all consuming for me to do this job well, especially in a district with costly competitive elections every two years. I do not have any sort of 'normal' life--for family, for friends, for church, for community." The implication that the rigors of his political position alienated him from his relationships and morals and somehow drove him into adultery is pretty absurd. One suggestion for better time management on the job? Stop having sex with your co-worker! Sheesh. So much for bearing the responsibility. Then he combines some bolstering with transcendence to argue that his resignation is to protect his family from the the "partisan" use of the scandal as a "political football" in the "poisonous environment of Washington, D.C." I'm sorry, but a conservative, family values evangelical pol should know going in that his marital infidelity will make for an easy target. One suggestion for protecting your family from the poisonous environment of Washington, D.C.? Stop having sex with your co-worker! Hey, I'm starting to see a pattern. Bonus irony: Mark and Tracy had already worked together on this pro-abstinence YouTube video!
One suggestion for increasing one's credibility when asking teens to forego "mutual relationships"...? You get the idea... Final Call?Botched. Yes, he does show some genuine emotion and obviously feels bad about what he did. But in the end it's just another guy claiming to take responsibility while blaming others, playing the victim, and spouting hypocrisy. Not a graceful exit and Souder hasn't been heard from since.
What was the deal?During a concert in London on March 10, 2003,
with the U.S. a week from invading Iraq, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie
Maines told an audience, “We’re ashamed that the President of the United States
is from Texas,” referring to fellow Lone Star denizen, President George W.
Bush, a strong proponent of war with Iraq.With that, the popular country trio was plunged into controversy and
castigation.Outraged fans, media
commentators, and politicians accused Maines—along with bandmates Martie Maguire and Emily Robison—of being unpatriotic and even traitorous to their country. That Maines made the remark on the brink of war and on foreign only intensified the negative reaction. The retribution was swift: radio stations stopped playing the Chicks' music, album sales plummeted, and calls for the band's demise came from multiple quarters. On March 14, Maines apologized, acknowledging that the President should always be given the "utmost respect." After two months of silence on the flap, Maines, Maguire, and Robison sat down for an interview with Entertainment Weekly to address the situation.
What did they say? The interview, which appeared in the May 2, 2003, issue of the entertainment magazine, can be found here.
How did they do? Maines uses differentiation strategy early in the exchange when she makes a distinction between President Bush and U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, emphasizing that her disapproval was directed at the former, not the latter. Maguire corroborates this claim by revealing that Robison immediately added "But you know we support the troops 100 percent." No one has disputed this account, so it would seem to be a pretty effective move to add this pivotal information in a high-profile media interview. Maines repeated her apology for disrespecting the office of the president (mortification strategy) and smartly draws on her positive role as a mother (Bolstering strategy) to express her concerns and fears about Iraqi children potentially harmed by the U.S. invasion, or worse. Finally, employing transcendence strategy, Robison stated: "I think everyone is afraid [about tensions in the world] and they need to vent it somehow. Not that they aren't truly mad [at us] about something. But what brings something to this level, especially when we as a group or Natalie have never said anything in this realm before?" Robison clearly acknowledges that this strategy may be pushing it, however, if one finds the public and media reaction disproportionate, she reminds the audience that this may not be about the Dixie Chicks after all.
Final Call?Sinkhole. Over time, the Dixie Chicks were able crawl out of the hole and reestablish their critical and commercial success, but certainly this interview didn't help much. So if the trio effectively applied well-established apologia strategies, as I seem to conclude above, why did this media event fail? Two reasons: First, the cover. Although Maguire defends the provocative pose during the Q&A, it just came across as gratuitous, desperate, and, frankly, a little confusing.Why create this polarizing distraction that hits the reader in the face and reminds them of the trumped-up charges before turning the interview itself? Second, the era. As with Arnold Schwarzenegger's "girlie men" comment, this controversy arose at a very weird time in our political and cultural history. With patriotism wielded like a blunt weapon, rational dissent and worldly sophistication were routinely eviscerated. To that extent, Robison may not have been persuasive, but she was correct: The Dixie Chicks were swept away in the whirlwind of post-9/11 scapegoating.
White House press secretary Jay Carney today revealed that President Obama had apologized to Kamala Harris for calling California's attorney general "by far the best looking attorney general" in the country. The story can be found here. The remark, made during a DNC fundraiser, generated immediate MSM criticism of Obama's uncharacteristic unforced error. According to Carney, "[Obama] fully recognizes the challenges women continue to face in the workplace and that they should not be judged based on appearance. They're old friends. He certainly regretted that [his comments] caused a distraction." As for Harris's reaction, her camp released a statement reaffirming the attorney general's longstanding friendship with and strong support of Obama.
Maybe they are friends, but this falls squarely in WGT (Why Go There) territory. Kind of like Obama's infamous Special Olympics bowling comment on TheTonight Show--just gratuitous and dumb. He obviously knew that commenting on a professional woman's appearance was sexist, or at the least would be interpreted as sexist by many, and, after the escapades of the Big Dog, Bill Clinton, should know that the public is not ready for another casanova-in-chief. Not to mention that with his second term initiatives stalling and public approval declining, his high favorability numbers, based significantly on the perception of Obama as a loving husband and father, is the best thing he has going at the moment. So what to make of this "old friends" defense? Seems like a weird kind of differentiation strategy, redefining the comment as relationship schtick rather than condescending come-on. Does that make it okay because, what, he routinely compliments Harris on her looks? I can't imagine Michelle, nor the millions of Americans who adore Michelle, being thrilled about that. Obama's quick apology (mortification strategy) and a plethora of other news stories (North Korea, today's jobs report, the president's budget, and next week's gun control debate in Congress) will take the air out of this incident in short order. But it was a stupid thing to say and he should know better. The "best looking" comment came just after Obama praised Harris as "brilliant," "dedicated," and "tough," instantly undercutting what should have been a shining career moment for the fast-rising California pol. I guess what bugs me most is that the president seemed to hand out that praise just to make the flirty banter more palatable, hence, the odd opening to the passage: "You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough..." Why would he need to be "careful" about espousing those qualities. It seems more likely that what he really wanted to remark on was how the attorney general's beauty made her more serious qualities a surprise, or something along those lines. But, in the end, Obama ends up relatively unscathed and Harris gets national exposure (and a lot of Google image searches). The real loser in all of this is Eric Holder, who's probably thinking, "Yeah, she's attractive but, c'mon, by far the best looking attorney general? What am I, chopped liver?" Meanwhile, Kelli Goff, a blogger for The Root, offers a different take on the episode here, criticizing the double standard at work in the media's criticism of Obama. It's worth a read.
Yeah, it was that bad. Although historically it rarely deigns to do so, today The Onion apologized for its ugly tweet directed at nine-year-old Oscar nominee Quvenzhane Wallis. The tweet, posted during last night's broadcast of the Academy Awards, met with immediate and intense condemnation. Sanity finally prevailed when a full apology appeared on the Onion Facebook page.
As a dad to six- and two-year-old girls, I have no interest in breaking this down further. Rather I will congratulate Quvenzhane on her nomination and hope she had fun at the Oscars.
Before the Ravens and 49ers take the field tonight to determine this year's NFL champion, let's take a moment of solemn reflection on Super Bowl's darkest hour split-second. Nine years ago today, fading pop star Janet Jackson released a grainy, bunker-like video, apologizing for the now-infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show. As I'm sure everyone remembers, at the end of a duet with Jackson, Justin Timberlake pulled off part of Jackson's wardrobe causing it to, well, malfunction, flashing Jackson's breast in front of, oh, only about 90 million people. The media went crazy. The FCC, headed by Michael Powell, went really crazy. Everyone involved apologized, but it didn't matter, because apparently life in America would never be the same. Certainly, Jackson's career wouldn't, although, oddly enough, JT seems to be doing just fine. Anyway, enjoy the game!
Club Apologia is now on Twitter, featuring links to breaking news reports and commentary about apologia and image repair situations. The link is here. Just added today: Manti Teo's interview with Katie Couric!
What was the deal? On December 9, 2008, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested on federal charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and solicitation to commit bribery. The governor allegedly attempted to exchange state jobs, contracts, and other political favors in order to obtain millions of dollars in campaign contributions and other special treatment. The most sensational allegation involved Blagojevich's efforts to "sell" the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama in exchange for a high-level position in the Obama administration (which, granted, would make a fine plotline in a political thriller but is frowned upon in real life.) Needless to say, calls for the the governor to resign were trumpeted throughout the land.
What did he say? A video clip of Blagojevich's first official post-arrest statement, delivered four years ago today, is above and the transcript can be found here.
How did he do? The governor appears to be in complete denial mode, both with the public and himself. His first sentence declares "I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing." He then reinforces his denial with a promise to fight the allegations. Okay, I may be understating this a bit. Blagojevich actually states: "I will fight this thing every step of the way. I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath." So while he scores points for tenacity, he gets downgraded for basically admitting that he'll be found guilty--otherwise, why anticipate fighting the charges until the reaper darkens his door?
Blagojevich then launches into a lot of attack the accuserstrategy, calling out the "political lynch mob" and "political enemies" who rely on "30-second sound bites." Then, adding a dash of conspiracy rhetoric, he alludes ominously to "some powerful forces arrayed against me." Hmm, using conspiracy language when accused of conspiracy--very high concept, Blago.
The governor engages in some fairly effective bolstering strategy, thanking his wife and other supporters for sticking with him and promising to stay above the fray until his trial, throwing in a Rudyard Kipling quote for quirky good measure.
Where this relatively brief speech fails most, I believe, is in the expectations game. Blagojevich sets such a high bar for any future apologia efforts that it almost makes one more skeptical of his innocence from the outset. He states: "Now, I'm dying to answer these charges. I am dying to show you how innocent I am. And I want to assure everyone who's listening, that I intend to answer every allegation that comes my way." There's a little bit of the John Edwards EPTEE (Excessive Paternity Test Eagerness Effect) going on here. I just don't think innocent people love the process of proving their innocence quite this much. I do think that guilty people love saying things like this though.
Final call?Sinkhole. Blagojevich offers some effective lines here, but it's undermined by low-level contradiction (i.e., stating his intention not to attack while engaged in attack, proclaiming a suspicious-sounding level of innocence). But don't worry, Blago fans, the colorful governor will revisit Club Apologia. And to his credit, the governor still exuded admirable holiday spirit, ending the December 19th speech with a jaunty "Merry Christmas. Happy holidays" (bonus points for savvy navigation of "war on Christmas" tensions). And so, during this festive time of year, as you gather around the hearth with family and friends, remember poor Rod Blagojevich and how he carried the spirit of the season within his heart--even when his heart was under arrest. May that be truly said of us --and all of us!
Three years ago today, golf legend Tiger Woods released his second public statement in the wake of allegations of adultery. The statement can be found here. Woods offers an apology and asks for forgiveness before announces his hiatus from the sport: "After much soul searching, I have decided to take an indefinite break from professional golf. I need to focus my attention on being a better husband, father, and person." Of course, this relatively brief apologia was just the second of numerous attempts by Woods to address the shocking scandal surrounding his personal life. Rather than offering my usual dissection of the golfer's efforts (and because I'm smack in the middle of final exams and grading) I will use the occasion as an opportunity to plug a great new anthology about the image repair efforts of famous athletes. Repairing the Athlete's Image: Studies in Sports Image Restoration, edited by Joseph R. Blaney, Lance R. Lippert, and J. Scott Smith, and published by Lexington Books, offers more than 20 different case studies of the image repair efforts of top athletes from all of the major sports, including William Benoit's treatment of the Tiger Woods case, as well as other scholars' take on Mark McGwire, Serena Williams, Michael Vick, Bobby Knight, Michael Phelps, Kobe Bryant, and many others. I even chip in my own analysis of Marion Jones's apologia interview with Oprah Winfrey. Check it out at Amazon.com here.
What was the deal?During the fall of 2011, businessman
Herman Cain was one of numerous candidates seeking the Republican nomination
for President. On October 30, a report
surfaced that two women who worked for Cain at the National Restaurant
Association had complained about Cain's sexually suggestive behavior and had received payments upon leaving the organization. Cain denied both the harassment allegations and the settlement payments, although he later acknowledged that
the organization had reached an “agreement” in which some of the women received
money. On November 2, a third woman
accused Cain of harassment. Five days
later, a fourth woman reported allegations against the
businessman, and became the first to reveal her name and offer specific details of alleged harassment. Cain continued to
deny all allegations, but pressure mounted on Cain
to discuss the situation in more detail.
Cain scheduled a press conference for November 8, seeking to address the charges “head on.” At the time the
scandal broke, Cain was tied with Mitt Romney as front-runners in the
Republican presidential primary. With his
candidacy in peril and his reputation in question, Cain chose to deliver an
apologia. What did he say? A video of Cain's briefing, delivered one year ago today, can be found here, and a transcript is included here. How did he do? Well, Cain didn't lack in confidence. He began his opening statement congratulating himself for his candor: "I choose to address these accusations directly...because that's the person Herman Cain is." Are we still doing the third-person reference thing? Probably just a slip of the tongue. Anyway, after that bit of bolstering strategy, Cain lays on the denial: "I have never acted inappropriately with anyone, period....I don't even know who this woman is....The charges and accusations I absolutely reject. They simply didn't happen. They simply did not happen." Well then, that should take care of it, right? The speech should end right there. Not surprisingly, it doesn't. It seems Cain still has a lot of explaining complaining to do about the media, which had "stalked" his family and encouraged his "anonymous accusers" and his one, um, onymous accuser, a "troubled woman" brought forth by "the Democratic machine." That's a lot of attack the accuser strategy for one speech. But, wait, there's another shadowy group which Cain exposes to the harsh light of day: "Some people don't want to see Herman Cain (okay, I guess it wasn't a slip of the tongue) get the Republican nomination...to keep a businessman out of the White House...their motivation is to stop Herman Cain (oy)." The candidate comes off sounding a bit scattershot and paranoid here, which undermines the earlier candid denials and directness which had been, at least since the first paragraph of his statement, a Herman Cain hallmark. The question-and-answer part of the briefing tries to dig into the details of the accusations made by the woman who went public, or as Cain sensitively describes her, "the one that was, you know, put their face on TV." He spends a lot of time offering tricky differentiation strategies to explain away his behavior and the payment the woman received after leaving Cain's organization. First, the payout constituted an employment "agreement" not a "legal settlement." Second, the offensive behavior involved an innocent gesture rather than sexual harassment. Cain spins the following yarn of office drama: "I was standing next to [her], and I gestured, standing near her, like this, 'You're the same height as my wife,' because my wife comes up to my chin. That was the one I remember." Okay, well, that's not exactly Mad Men and sounds pretty harmless. And he doesn't remember anything else, so why would anyone think there's more to the story? Maybe because only three paragraphs earlier, Cain boasts, "I'm pretty good at remembering people." I think Herman Cain knows that Herman Cain is not demonstrating the Herman Cain directness for which Herman Cain is known. Final Call?Sinkhole. Cain's emphatic denials bought him a bit of time, but his press conference left too many unanswered questions. Those lingering doubts grew when, three weeks later, another woman, Ginger White, admitted to a 13-year affair with Cain. His poll numbers dropped into single digits and, on December 3, 2011, Cain suspended his campaign, and Mitt Romney eventually emerged as the GOP nominee. However, Cain has far from disappeared from the public arena, hosting a popular radio show, touring the lecture circuit, and working as a FOX News commentator. In fact, only yesterday, Cain called for a new, more conservative, third party in American politics. It seems unlikely, however, that Cain, with his scandal history, will ever emerge as the nominee of that--or any--political party.
What was the deal?U.S.
Senator Richard Nixon was nominated for vice-president in 1952, as General
Dwight D. Eisenhower’s running mate. The
two Republicans ran against Democratic candidates Adlai Stevenson and John
Sparkman. Nixon had earned a reputation
as a strong anti-Communist crusader, which he believed was an asset to him
during the campaign. Nixon also
criticized Stevenson and the Democrats for being unethical, corrupt, and out of
touch with the average American citizen. In the
middle of the autumn campaign a newspaper reported allegations that Senator
Nixon was hiding an $18,000 secret political fund, paid for by millionaire
supporters.After criticizing the
Democrats for corruption and a cozy relationship with wealthy donors, these
accusations made Nixon appear, at best, hypocritical and, at worst, corrupt
himself.Many urged Nixon to quit the
campaign.
Knowing
that his vice-presidential candidacy and political future were in sudden and
serious jeopardy, Richard Nixon chose to defend himself. The Republican National Committee (RNC) bought thirty minutes of NBC evening airtime for September 23rd. Hours before the broadcast, one of Eisenhower's top advisors directed Nixon to end the speech by announcing his withdrawal from the ticket. With the pressure growing and a nation waiting, Nixon
appeared on stage at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood in an attempt to save his political career
with one of the most famous and influential speeches in U.S. political history. What did he say?A full transcript and audio of Nixon's speech, delivered 60 years ago tonight, can be found here and the first part of the speech video can be found at the top of this post and Part 2, including the famous passage about Checkers, is here. How did he do?Knowing that his bosses seemed to want him to fail, the Senator from California brought the house, as they say in football. At least a dozen different self-defense strategies are employed and most were pretty effective with 1952 Americans. The speech has a three part structure with each part performing an important rhetorical function. First, Nixon addresses the merits of the scandal--the fund. In a straightforward and clearly supported series of denials, he claims innocence on three key points: (1) The fund was not secret; (2) The fund was not for Nixon's personal use; and (3) Nixon paid no political favors to fund contributors. For many citizens, these issues constituted the heart of the matter and Nixon's lack of equivocation in his denials early in the address probably eased viewers' minds and made them receptive to the rest of his argument. This section also serves as an extended use of differentiation strategy, as Nixon sets forth the conditions under which such a fund would be "morally wrong" and then indicates that his behavior falls far short of each condition. Nixon ends this first section by quoting from a Price Waterhouse independent audit and legal opinion that confirms Nixon's innocence. The latter was rendered by the law firm of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, which is still going strong as can be seen here, although Crutcher apparently is no longer needed. The second part of the speech is a remarkable recounting of the Senator's financial status, which he, somewhat breathlessly, reminds viewers was "unprecedented in the history of American politics." He launches into "a complete financial history, everything I've earned, everything I've spent, everything I own." "Complete" is an understatement as Nixon literally begins with "I was born in 1913" and continues on...and on...and on...working the family grocery store, marriage, military service, and a listing of assets and debts that includes an Oldsmobile car and specific dollar amounts, right down to the 4 percent interest he pays on a loan from his parents. But his accounting saves the best for last. After concluding that what he has "isn't very much," Nixon adds that his wife Pat (who actually is sitting about 10 feet away from Nixon during the entire speech, as is seen in the video) "doesn't have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her she'd look good in anything." This line reveals both (1) how much the GOP brand has changed in the last six decades, and (2) that "Tricky Dick" had some "Slick Willie" in him at this early stage in his career. This entire section operates as one giant bolstering strategy, as Nixon connects himself to the positive appeal of the common and humble self-made man. This works both as a contrast to Stevenson and Sparkman and offers further evidence that he had not feathered his own nest (Nixon's phrase) with millionaire slush fund cash. And then it happens. Nixon has one last financial revelation up his sleeve and he sets it up like a seasoned storyteller: "One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I don't they'll probably be saying this about me too." If you watch the video, you'll notice master thespian Nixon wearily touch his forehead in a pained expression that underscores his inner turmoil. As the audience ponders what terrible transgression the VP nominee is about to confess, Nixon relates the now-legendary tail tale of the little dog bequeathed by "a man down in Texas" to Nixon's two children. But let the Senator paint the word picture for us: "We got a message from Union Station in Baltimore, saying that they had a package for us. We went down to get it. You know what it was? It was a little cocker spaniel dog...black and white, spotted. And our little girl Tricia, the six year old, named it 'Checkers.' And you know, the kids, like all kids, love the dog, and I just want to say this, right now, that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it." Okay, let's unpack this short but amazing passage. Loving, sacrificing father? Check. Painstakingly honest man of the people? Check. Cute puppy? Check. I mean, Checkers. This may be the greatest example of irrelevant bolstering ever attempted in an apologia effort. At this point, Nixon could have just stood up, shout "Good night, everybody!," and walk off the El Capitan stage. His work was done. There is a third part to this speech, but at this point Nixon, having established his populist, puppy-loving cred, pivots to campaign attack mode, linking his Democratic rivals to the spread of corruption and Communism in Washington. It's a heaping helping of attack the accuser strategy served with a side of transcendence strategy as Nixon makes his puny little slush fund troubles pale in comparison to government-wide political graft and worldwide Soviet domination. By the time the speaker generously refuses to cash a $10 check mailed in by a 19 year old soldier's wife, Nixon is running up the score and showboating his oratorical genius. If you watch the video, it's interesting to note how during this part of the speech Nixon is no longer seated behind the desk but is standing out front, his delivery more dynamic and passionate, marking the shift from personal humility to political hatchet man. Final Call?Cakewalk. Nixon left it to the RNC to decide whether he should remain on the ticket with Ike but also urged viewers to let the party chiefs know how they felt (jurisdiction strategy). Letters and postcards supporting Nixon flooded the RNC and the Senator was soon elected vice president. This speech worked because Nixon abandoned all ego and left nothing to chance--a lesson lost on many public figures. Despite the rather quaint (by today's standards) amount of money at the center of the scandal and the silliness of family pet references, the "Checkers" speech had enormous ramifications for our country. First, it saved Richard Nixon's political career, without which the U.S. would have been spared the national trauma of Watergate. Okay, maybe there's a bit of "butterfly effect" in that linkage but I think it's reasonable. Second, as communication scholars Stephen E. Lucas and Martin J. Medhurst rightly point out in their excellent book Words of a Century: The Top 100 American Speeches, 1900-1999: "At a time when Americans were beginning to fall in love with television, [the Checkers speech] also demonstrated the potential power of the new medium for political communication, a development fraught with implications for the future of American public discourse and civic life."
I'll dispense with the usual format and just link to an analysis posted on the old blog marking the tenth anniversary of this infamous speech, delivered 14 years ago today. The post can be found here.
What was the deal? John Edwards rose to political prominence as the vice-presidential nominee alongside John Kerry in 2004 and ran for the top spot himself four years later before dropping out of the Democratic primary in early 2008. Edwards had been viewed as a strong presidential candidate based on his commitment to fighting poverty and benefited from an outpouring of public support during his wife Elizabeth's battles with breast cancer. However, tabloid rumors circulated that Edwards had an affair with Rielle Hunter, a documentary filmmaker hired to work for his campaign. The rumors included allegations that Edwards fathered Hunter's child and secretly provided Hunter with financial support. In August, 2008, Edwards finally admitted his infidelity. The admission stunned the public and media for several reasons: (1) Edwards had long presented himself as an upstanding family man and champion of the impoverished, (2) the timing of the affair suggested that it occurred while his wife, a tireless and effective campaigner for Edwards, battled cancer, and (3) committing adultery while running for president seemed like a very reckless act. Soon after his public admission, Edwards accepted an invitation from ABC for an interview with Nightline's Bob Woodruff on August 8, 2008. Knowing that his reputation and credibility had been, to put it mildly, severely damaged, Edwards chose to answer questions about his behavior in an attempt to improve his public image and salvage his political career.
What did he say? Transcript excerpts and video of the Woodruff-Edwards interview, conducted four years ago today, can be found here.
How did he do? Because this is going to be pretty unpleasant, let's at least recognize a few things Edwards tried to do well. First, he quickly engages in mortification, taking responsibility for his "mistake" and seeking forgiveness from his wife and God, although offering an explicit apology would help. Also, although he doesn't deny the Hunter affair, Edwards does deny other troubling allegations, including the fathering of Hunter's child and the payment of "hush money" to keep Hunter quiet--behavior that would suggest a deeper level of recklessness and deception. The Democrat reinforces his denial through use of attack the accuser strategy by making three references to "tabloid" journalism as the source of the supposedly false charges.
The thing about the denial strategy, however, is that its effectiveness is guaranteed only to the extent that one is not lying through their teeth. Eventually, Edwards would admit paternity of Hunter's child and, frankly, even at the time of the Woodruff interview, I'm not sure a lot of people bought his denials. For example, the way in which the former Veep nominee expresses his willingness to take a paternity test seems...oh, I don't know, a bit too eager ("I would welcome participating in a paternity test, would be happy to participate in one....Happy to take a paternity test and would love to see it happen....I can only do one side of the test, but I'm happy to participate in one."). A person in Edwards's uncomfortable position, even if he thinks he's not the daddy and is willing to take a DNA test, probably wouldn't "love" to take one.
To his credit, Woodruff asked Edwards point blank the question most wanted to hear: How could he cheat on his cancer-stricken wife? Edwards gives two answers and they're both awful. First, he uses a differentiation strategy by making the despicable distinction between cancer adultery and remission adultery. I'm sorry, but there's just no other way to put that. He states: "First of all, it happened during a period after she was in remission from cancer." I really don't need to delve into how troubling that statement is, so let's move on to his second explanation. Edwards then launches into a surreal soliloquy about growing up a "small town boy in North Carolina" who "came from nothing" and "got some acclaim as a lawyer." He goes on: "People were telling me, oh, he's such a great person, such a great lawyer, such a talent, he's going to--no telling what he'll do." Okay, for fans of the original The Office (UK) television series, Edwards is totally doing David Brent at this point, which is probably not a great choice for a real-life, high stakes rhetorical strategy. Remember the question asked how he could cheat on his seriously ill spouse. This cocky musing seems woefully misguided. Anyway, Edwards basically gives a "too much, too fast" spin on his life, leading to "a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe you can do whatever you want." This bolstering strategy, in which Edwards tries to positively associate himself with his past success and with small town values, essentially argues that he did a bad thing because, well, he's become a really bad person. Yeah, it's pretty weak.
As was often the case in his political rhetoric, Edwards comes across as too slick and lawyerly here. On several occasions, he reframes Woodruff's questions to make them less incriminating as can be seen in the exchange about whether Edwards's associate Fred Baron paid hush money to Hunter: Woodruff: "Do you think it's possible he was trying to protect you?" Edwards: "Do I think he was trying to help me?" Or when discussing whether he informed Elizabeth about visiting Hunter in L.A.: Woodruff: "That was a secret?" Edwards: "You mean did I tell her before I went?" And so on. The ex-veep nominee seems more concerned with being careful than contrite.
Final Call?Bloodbath. Under the circumstances, Edwards needed an extraordinary performance to have even a chance of improving his public standing. His interview responses were extraordinary but for the wrong reasons, relying on a lethal combination of silly psychobabble, self-absorption, and straight-out lying. He may have beat the rap this past May when a federal jury could not convict him of using campaign contributions to keep Hunter's silence. However, it's impossible to envision a scenario in which he could revive his political career and his public reputation remains in tatters. Finally, Edwards has to live the rest of his life in a world that knows he vehemently denied his own infant daughter on national television when trying to explain why he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife while running for our nation's highest office. It doesn't get much worse. So let's give the last word on all of this to the now-departed Elizabeth Edwards, who wrote a memoir in 2009 called, fittingly enough, Resilience.
