sorry state of the union
I think a good way to judge a new administration is by an equation I call the Contrition Differential Index. The CDI is a formula derived by dividing the number of announcements made by the number of apologies issued, then taking that number and multiplying it by the number of days since the election. Here’s an example:
Official Announcements From Team Obama: 15 (13 members of transition team, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and some rules about lobbyists)
Apologies: 2 (Obama to Nancy Reagan for implying she held seances, Emmanuel to the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee for a comment his father made)
Days Since Election: 10
CDI= (15/2) x 10=75
Of course, since I just invented this concept, I’m not sure if a CDI of 75 is good or bad. I am sure that, in American politics, apologies are being issued for some pretty insignificant transgressions. Let’s look at the meae culpae from the past two weeks.
Granted, for some inexplicable reason, Nancy Reagan is adored by millions of Americans (who have apparently forgotten that for most of her term as First Lady she was widely seen as a shrewish Machiavellian horoscope-consulting whack-job). But the seance thing was…what’s it called?…A JOKE! Who exactly was wronged by this? Nancy Reagan? The widow of the man who, AS A JOKE, said “We begin bombing in five minutes”? Please.
The Emmanuel apology was for a comment his father made to an Israeli newspaper, and yeah, the comment was insensitive and narrow-minded, but he was hardly speaking on behalf of the administration! I realize this isn’t a particularly good time to piss off the Arab world, but I’m pretty sure most Arab-Americans are able separate what somebody’s dad said from offical policy. Hell, I think we all can remember things Dad said that made us cringe, and we basically said ‘that’s just Dad.’
We, as a nation, need to adopt a new motto: ‘Let It Go’. Put it right on the coins, instead of ‘In God We Trust’ (I haven’t seen a Zogby poll on this, but I’m thinking there’s a lot fewer people who trust God now than there were in 1956 anyway). The problem with every aggrieved group demanding an apology for a perceived slight is that apologies are at risk of becoming meaningless. You flood a market with something, that something gets devalued.
I’m all for contrition, but let’s save it for the big stuff. Like this, after a recent air strike in Afghanistan:
“We do not know all the facts at this time but we will investigate this situation to get to the truth,” said Col. Greg Julian, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan. “If we find that innocent people were killed in this incident, we apologize…”
Putting aside my pacifistic instinct to point out that fewer innocent people will be killed if we stop firing missiles at places where innocent people live, this at least is an apology for something significant. Not sure how well received it was by the families involved, but it’s a nice gesture.
I suppose I should start sending formal apologies:
Dear T-Mobile–
I offer my heartfelt apologies if I gave the impression I would be able to pay my phone bill last month. I deeply regret any harm I have caused your company.
I feel better already. And if I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings, I am truly sorry.
