SORRY IS THE HARDEST WORD [USA Today]

CONSERVATIVE talk show host Rush Limbaijgh called Georgetown University Law Center student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" pursuant to her testifying before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in favor of national health insurance coverage for contraception.

Given the human condition of error-proneness, now exacerbated by the fragmentation of media, including social media, apologies always are in lhe news. Perceived inappropriateness and insufficiency of publicized wriden and oral statements followed by no apology, inadequate apology, customary apology, or profound apology have become a standard subject for national debate.

Limbaugh's personal attack and verbal assault was followed by several of his advertisers pulling iheir support, others saying lheir ads inadvertently were played on his show, and a variety of groups spontaneously attempting to arrange various boycotts.

Limbaugh issued an apology that was seen as insincere by his detractors: "For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. . . . My choice of words was not the best, and in (he attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for lhe insulting word choices."

This was followed by a debate regarding whether Limbaugh genuinely was contrite or if he created with his word choice wiggle room to escape condemnation while not really regretting his onslaught.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer has pointed out. Democrats always seem to want admissions of error, particularly when it is Republicans who make the alleged gaffe. When Pres. George W. Bush was besieged by demands for an apology for his invasion of Iraq (and later his delayed reaction to Hurricane Katrina), Krauthammer relates that, not only was there evidentiary support for the argument that his policies had been justified, but there was no precedent for Democratic presidents being called upon to apologize for problems or catastrophes on their watch. Près. Franklin Roosevelt, for instance, never had to apologize for errors in tactics in World War II; former Près. Bill Clinton was not asked to apologize for equating the anger engendered by UK Tea Party movement with the possibility it could lead to another Oklahoma City-like bombing; and. one might add. Pres. Jimmy Carter never was pressured to apologize for his Iranian policy, which left 52 hostages in that country for more than a year and supported leadership there that haunts the U.S. to this day.

Pres. Barack Obama has made a habit of apologizing, but not for mistakes he has made. Rather, his apologies have been for alleged mistakes the U.S. has committed - under Republican leadership. As catalogued by Fox News, the President has apologized for the economic crisis ("I take responsibility, even if I wasn't president at the time"), "failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world," lack of engagement of "our neighbors" (in Latin America), and the perception of our being "at war with Islam."

Apologies by well-known principals often are made reluctantly, and there is the consistent charge thai the apology is not sincere. The neverending rhetorical debate over what makes for a sincere apology is fascinating. Apologies take many forms, from an ingenuous appeal for forgiveness (the apologizer really regrets what he, she, or someone related or in his OT her charge did) to a strategic attempt to ameliorate consequences (such as you might witness at a sentencing hearing) to a meeting of sociological expectations of your constituents (such as political apologies during a race for office) to a patently insincere apology to communicate one's contempt for the victim of your bad behavior (David Lettennan's, wherein he said bat when he joked that a Sarah PaKn daughter "was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez," he was referring not to Gov. Sarah Palin's 14 year-old daughter, but to her 1 8year-old daughter, "who [had been] knocked up.").

The outrage was so strong pursuant to !his follow-up nasty attack masquerading as an apology that Letterman offered a sincere-sounding "When public policy issue debate leads to nasty, irre/evant persona/attack, as mandated insurance for contraception has [in the case of Rush LimbaughJ, opponents will turn the issue to the untowardness of the attack and ignore, if they can, the points at issue."

apology on a subsequent show, saying, "It was a coaree joke, a bad joke [but] I never thought it was [about] anybody other than the older daughter and, before the show, I checked to make sure, in fact, that she is of legal age, 18.. ..The joke, really, in and of itself, can't be defended."

Now, (his belatedly may appear to many to be a heartfelt apology, probably defusing the situation for the talk show host but, as a second apology, is likely lo have been motivated by growing national pressure, one would think it would not be accepted by critics as sincere - but the seeming ingenuousness did work. Hardly anyone talks about the original affront any more, and certainly his supporters are back. In JJmbaugh's case, he has lost the "reluctant testimony" baule, and conservatives in large numbers, including Republican presidential candidates, have expressed their outrage over his attack.

If any apology can be taken merely as strategic, what sort of apology likely will be taken as utterly honest and without deceit? Let us infer what a universally persuasive analogy would look like from a real example: the honorable statement of condition a few years ago by the son of the 88-year-old perpetrator of the attack at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and killing of revered guard Stephen T. Johns.

Listen to Erik VOD Brunn's words of remorse in a statement to ABC News, reponed by Bill Turque of the Washington POST. "I cannot express enough how deeply sorry I am it was Mr. Johns and not my father who lost their life yesterday [June 10, 2009]. [It] was unjustified and unfair that he died, and while my condolences could never begin to offer appeasement, they, along with my remorse is all I have to give. [For] the extremists who believe my father is a hero: it is imperative you understand what he did was an act of cowardice. [He] should not be remembered as a brave man or a hero, but a coward unable to come to grips with the fact he threw his and his families, lives away for an ideology that fostered sadness and anguish."

Do you see any confbctedness in his condemnation of his father's despicable act? Do you hear any subtle tone or equivocation that would imply that his remorse was diluted by other motives, such as denial or forgjvingness toward the sinister murderer, his father? Neither do 1.

There is little in self-justificatory rhetoric that sickens audiences more than the disingenuous apology. It adds undeserved stress to the victim - often considerable undeserved stress. All insincere and strategie apologies deserve whatever punishment that aggravation dictates, because they all aggravate the circumstances of the victims of the affront.

One feels nothing but genuine appreciation for the clear, unqualified apology of von Brunn for his father's unforgivable act That is what an honest, heartfelt apology sounds like.

Back to Limbaugh's gaffe and questionable contrition. Persuasion is all about the struggle far agenda (what issues we focus on) and spin (what those issues mean). Ui Limbaugh's irrelevant personal assailing of Fluke, he lost the ability to make the issue whether mandated national health insurance should include freely chosen sexual behavior, since arguably that should not be considered as a disease covered by mandated insurance.

He also, by inelevantiy and tastelessly attacking a woman who testified on the matter, lost the ability to argue, as the ???/? Street Journal explains in an article by Cadiy Cleaver Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, that "Ms. Fluke's crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs thai make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant."

When public policy issue debate leads to nasty, irrelevant personal attack, as mandated insurance for contraception has in the case of Limbaugh's verbal assault on Fluke, it allows - and indeed guarantees - that opponents will turn the issue to the untowardness of the attack and ignore, if they can, the points at issue.

Authentically swift and sincere apologies not only are ethical, they are effective and persuasive.

Richard E. Vatz, Psychology Editor of USA Today, is professor of rhetoric and communication at Towson (Md.) University and author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion.