Sistemas de organización de contingencias

President Clinton

In many ways, 1998 was a Dickensian year. The economy was chugging along at a sustained and growing pace and the stock market was reaching re-cord highs. Yet, events in January transpired that plunged the nation into a year-long odyssey though the trials and travails of a weakened president whose actions left a permanent stain on his office. In the course of events, President Clinton made six major statements that counted the sum and substance of both his apologiae. This analysis seeks to give historical con-text and explicate all six statements as well as focus analysis on the three major apologetic statements he made. (For more on Clinton’s apologiae, see Blaney & Benoit, 2001; Kramer & Olson, 2002.)

Initial Allegations and Apologetic Responses. On January 21, President Clinton was accused of having an affair with a 21-year-old intern, Monica Lewinsky (Clines & Gerth, 1998). In addition to allegations of an affair, seri-ous political charges arose suggesting that the president may have ob-structed justice in an effort to conceal the affair from the public and from lawyers for Paula Jones, who was pursuing a sexual harassment lawsuit against him for an alleged incident that took place while he was governor of Arkansas. As a result, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr—already inves-tigating the president for the failed Whitewater deal—was authorized to in-vestigate whether or not the president had suborned perjury by encouraging Lewinsky to lie under oath to protect him.

In an interview with PBS’s Jim Lehrer, the president seemed to respond to the story as if he was measuring and formulating his story as he went along.

To allegations of an extramarital affair with a 21-year-old and that he had suborned perjury in an effort to cover up the affair—allegations universally believed to be wrong—President Clinton utilized a strategy of denial. He re-plied, “That is not true. That is not true. I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. There is no improper relationship, and I intend to co-operate with this inquiry. But that is not true” (“The President Under Fire,”

1998c, p. A24). When pressed by Lehrer to explain what he meant by “no improper relationship,” President Clinton utilized a strategy of differentia-tion. He replied, “Well, I think you know what it means. It means that there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship, or any other kind of improper relationship” (“The President Under Fire,” 1998c, p. A24).

In other words, he was careful not to deny any relationship, only one that was an “improper” sexual one.

In an interview later that day with National Public Radio’s Robert Siegel and Mara Liasson, the president reaffirmed this strategy of denial to a ques-tion as to whether he had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky:

No. That’s not true either. And I have told people that I would cooperate in the investigation, and I expect to cooperate with it. I don’t know any more about it than I’ve told you, and any more about it, really, than you do. But I will cooperate. The charges are not true. And I haven’t asked anybody to lie.

(“The President Under Fire,” 1998c, p. A24)

Less than a week later, President Clinton seemed more sure of himself and issued his more forceful and perhaps his most memorable statement on the allegations surrounding the Lewinsky affair. Again, using a strategy of de-nial, he responded with a wag of the finger:

But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never.

These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. (“The President Under Fire,” 1998a, p. A14)

Buoyed by the strong denial, using all the ceremonial power of the presi-dency, Clinton lieutenants were able to go on the offensive and offer strong third-party support of the president. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared on the Today show to discuss the charges. Responding to a ques-tion from Matt Lauer, Mrs. Clinton reiterated the president’s denial: “… I think the important thing now is to stand as firmly as I can and say that, you know, the President has denied these allegations on all counts, un-equivocally” (“The President Under Fire,” 1998b, p. A22). Additionally, she pointed out that Clinton friend Vernon Jordan “has helped literally hundreds of people” (“The President Under Fire,” 1998b, p. A22), and thus his helping Miss Lewinsky would not have been unusual. She then proceeded to issue a scathing use of a counterattack strategy on Independ-ent Counsel Kenneth Starr for his $30 million investigation of the Clintons, and claimed that he was “politically motivated” and “allied with the right-wing opponents of my husband,” concluding that, all told, the actions of Kenneth Starr and others adds up to a “vast right-wing conspir-acy that has been conspiring against my husband” (“The President Under Fire,” 1998b, p. A22).

Clinton’s first opportunity to address his wrongdoing in January 1998 must be considered a complete moral failure, because he denied any wrongdoing (wrongdoing to which he eventually admitted). As it relates to the manner in which his apologia was delivered, it fails: The apologia was not truthful; it was

not sincere, but instead was manipulative in his attempt to define the rela-tionship as “not improper”; nor did it address all moral claimants.

In terms of the content of the apologia, it did not explicitly acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever, nor did it fully accept responsibility, nor issue any regret, nor ask for forgiveness. Evidently, this was a case in which the president was of the mindset that the complicating factor of discretion and his subse-quent right to privacy (and that of Ms. Lewinsky) gave him permission to be less than forthcoming as to the nature of the wrongdoing. However, it does ap-pear that, in a case involving the president of the United States, discretion as a complicating factor is likely to be defined very narrowly.

Apologetic Response to Allegations of Witness Tampering.

President Clinton’s next major statement on the Lewinsky scandal occurred on February 7, and was prompted by allegations that he was guilty of witness tampering. Specifically, the allegations stipulated that he had attempted to influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie. After his 6-hour deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, he called Mrs.

Currie into work the next day—Sunday, January, 18, 1998—to go over the testimony that he had presented, which raised questions as to whether he was attempting to influence her recollection of events. It was reported that the president walked his secretary through the answers he had given in his deposition, and that there was at least one critical incident in which his in-terpretation differed from hers. Acting as a third-party apologist, White House press secretary Michael McCurry suggested a more innocuous inter-pretation of events: the president was attempting to influence his own mem-ory of the circumstances of the case.

In his own defense, President Clinton denied any wrongdoing; he in-sisted, “I never asked anybody to do anything but tell the truth” (Broder, 1998a, p. A1). He further ruled out any chance that he might resign:

To give in to that would be to give in to everything that I fought against and that got me into this race in 1991 to try to run for President in the first place. I have tried to bring an end to this sort of thing in our public life. I’ve tried to bring the American people together. I’ve tried to depersonalize poli-tics and take the venom out of it. And the harder I’ve tried to do it, the harder others have pulled in the opposite direction. (Broder, 1998a, p. A8)

He then added some bolstering, focusing on his relationship with the Amer-ican people: “And I would never walk away from the people of this country and the trust they placed in me” (Broder, 1998a, p. A8).

Not only did he rule out resignation, but Clinton’s lawyers went on the of-fensive, using a third-party defense. Again relying heavily on a strategy of counterattack, Clinton’s personal lawyer, David Kendall, decried the tactics

used by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Specifically, he argued that the independent counsel had illegally leaked grand jury testimony to media sources and, consequently, Kendall was pursuing a contempt citation against Starr (Broder, 1998a).

August 17 Televised Apologetic Address. Although the story did not go away, it certainly died down a bit until August 1998, when it became evident that President Clinton would testify before a grand jury in response to the emergence of DNA evidence on a blue dress owned by Ms. Lewinsky. Given that the president had agreed the previous week that he would testify, and amid growing speculation that his testimony would likely admit that he lied to the American people about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, there was a mounting expectation that he would make a public address to account for the inconsistency.

In an interview on Meet the Press, Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, laid a rhetorical trap for the president, and Clinton surprisingly took the bait. Specifically, Hatch suggested that if the president would make a full mea culpa, in the process he would likely diffuse the desire to impeach him (Seelye, 1998). He asserted, “If he comes forth and tells it and does it in the right way and there aren’t a lot of other factors to cause the Congress to say, ‘This man is unfit for the Presidency and should be impeached,’ then I think the President would have a reasonable chance of getting through this” (Seelye, 1998, p. A1).

In the event the President was forced to admit he had lied, according to Hatch, “just a mere apology is not enough here; he’d have to really pour his heart out to the American people,” suggesting that Clinton admit he lied to protect his wife and daughter (Seelye, 1998, p. A12).

The initial response to Hatch’s offer was to reject it, continuing with the strategy of denial. Spokesperson Barry Toiv replied, “The President has told the truth about this and he will continue to do so. I have no reason to think that he has changed in any way” (Bennet & Van Natta, 1998, p. A1).

Events begin to change on August 7, when Monica Lewinsky testified in federal court that she had indeed had an affair with the president (Van Natta & Bennet, 1998). By August 14, stories were leaked that the president was considering acknowledging that he had had an affair with Ms. Lewinsky (Berke, 1998).

Finally, on August 17, the president testified for 4½ hours before a grand jury and acknowledged that he had had an intimate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Concomitant with the testimony, he entered the public crucible in a nationally televised speech, partially written by Mrs. Clinton, to recount his testimony and acknowledge the affair to the American people (Abramson, 1998). In a defiant apologia, the president first began with a strategy of confession regarding the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky:

“In-deed I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate.

In fact it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible”

(“Testing of a President,” 1998a, p. A12).

In effect, he admitted the relationship and fully acknowledged the wrongdoing. Regarding the allegations that he encouraged others to lie, he continued with a strategy of denial; he stated, “But I told the grand jury to-day, and I say to you now, that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or de-stroy evidence, or to take any other unlawful action” (“Testing of a President,” 1998a, p. A12). Not to be too humble and conciliatory, Clinton then turned his attention to the familiar strategy of counterattack toward Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. He charged:

I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago—dealings, I might add, about which an independent Federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or by wife over two years ago. The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends. Then into my private life.

And now the investigation itself is under investigation. This has gone on too long, cost too much, and hurt too many innocent people. (“Testing of a Pres-ident,” 1998a, p. A12)

President Clinton then utilized a strategy of differentiation whereby he distinguished between his public and private life by pleading for the return of his personal privacy: “Now this matter is between me, the two people I love most—my wife and our daughter—and our God. It’s nobody’s business but ours. Even Presidents have private lives” (“Testing of a President,” 1998a, p.

A12). Coupled with the public apology, news reports revealed that the presi-dent spent much of the weekend preceding his testimony acknowledging the relationship and apologizing to friends and close advisors (Berke & Van Natta, 1998).

Reaction to the speech was predictable. Professional critics lined up on each side. Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, who had said the president should come clean and “pour his heart out,” was reported to have com-mented, “Wasn’t that pathetic? I tell you, what a jerk. That’s the biggest mis-take he’s ever made” (Sack, 1998, p. A16). The speech did not even address Democratic expectations. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said, “I thought there would be more humility. But he was forceful enough. I don’t know re-ally whether that works or not. I think it works for the people who wanted to get it behind us” (Sack, 1998, p. A16).

Judging by the reactions of others, this second major apologetic state-ment offered by President Clinton, after he testified before a grand jury, would still have to be considered morally unacceptable, although it was a

considerable improvement over his initial denial. In this case, he began to come to grips with his wrongdoing, but did not do so fully. As is commonly known, this is when he first began to acknowledge his wrongdoing, but clearly had not come to the place of full repentance.

As to the manner of his apology, for the first time he was truthful, in that he acknowledged what most Americans suspected all along—that he had indeed had a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. As to sincerity, it is here where the apology began to break down; when people judged his performance, they did not see humility and repentance performed but instead saw defiance, due to his heavy use of counterattack against Kenneth Starr. Of course, given that almost 8 months had transpired, the apologia was very late. He apologized to the Lewinsky family, his own family, and the American people, and in so doing began to address all moral claimants. Finally, his decision to deliver the apol-ogy from the White House was an acceptable context.

Regarding the content of the apologia, again, the apologia presented a major improvement, although it left much to be desired. First, President Clinton did explicitly acknowledge his wrongdoing, discuss his regret, and accept responsibility; but he did so in such a way that he continued to utilize strategies of shifting of the blame and launching a counterattack against In-dependent Counsel Kenneth Starr. In this way, Clinton’s apology was not as successful at meeting expectations as it might have been (Gronback, 1999).

The purpose of his apology was to repair his relationship with the American people. In so doing, be began to bring about reconciliation. However, he of-fered no corrective action. All in all, the apology would have to be viewed as morally unacceptable due to the fact that it lacked contrition.

Apology at King Celebration. Either recognizing from public outcry that the previous admission was not enough or realizing that multiple apologies would be necessary, President Clinton revisited the topic of apology in re-marks he made at the Union Chapel in Oak Bluff, Massachusetts, on the 35th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, “I Have a Dream” speech.

In a speech that focused on the mutual interdependence of all Americans, he turned the topic to that of forgiving enemies. He ritualistically revisited and reaffirmed his need for mortification when he intoned:

All of you know I’m having to become quite an expert in this business of asking for forgiveness. And I—it gets a little easier the more you do it. And if you have a family, an Administration, a Congress and a whole country to ask, you’re going to get a lot of practice.

But I have to tell that in these last days it has come home to me again, something I first learned as President, but it wasn’t burned into my bones—and that is that in order to get it, you have to be willing to give it.

And all of us—the anger, the resentment, the bitterness, the desire for re-crimination against people you believe have wronged you—they harden the heart and deaden the spirit and lead to self-inflicted wounds.

And so it is important that we are able to forgive those we believe have wronged us, even as we ask for forgiveness from people we have wronged.

(“In Clinton’s Remarks,” 1998, pp. A1, A10)

In this way, Clinton used a strategy whereby he encouraged people not to judge him, but instead to forgive him, as he was learning to forgive those who he felt had harmed him.

Moscow Press Conference Apology. The president’s next remarks on the topic occurred when he gave his first public press conference since acknowl-edging the affair, albeit in Moscow. When questioned about whether his ad-mission of a relationship with Monica Lewinsky had expressed enough contrition, he replied, “I have acknowledged that I made a mistake, said that I regretted it, asked to be forgiven, spent a lot of very valuable time with my family in the last couple of weeks and said I was going back to work” (Broder, 1998b, p. A1). At this stage, Clinton was in danger of delivering a serial apology in that his major apology before the nation clearly had not put the is-sue to rest.

Prayer Breakfast Apology. Frustrated at the unwillingness of President Clinton to offer contrition, Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, took to the Senate floor to denounce the behavior of the presi-dent. Lieberman challenged him on the point that Clinton had long known the boundaries of a private life of a president and acknowledging that he had failed profoundly as a role model for the American children and as a repre-sentative of the American people; he concluded his remarks arguing that Clinton’s “behavior is not just inappropriate, it is immoral” (“Excerpts From Senator Lieberman’s Talk,” 1998, p. A18). Lieberman charged:

Just as the American people are demanding of their leaders, though, they are also fundamentally fair and forgiving, which is why I was so hopeful the Presi-dent could begin to repair the damage done with his address to the nation on the 17th. But like so many others, I came away feeling that for reasons that are

Just as the American people are demanding of their leaders, though, they are also fundamentally fair and forgiving, which is why I was so hopeful the Presi-dent could begin to repair the damage done with his address to the nation on the 17th. But like so many others, I came away feeling that for reasons that are