Terry Prone: Why is ‘sorry’ sometimes the hardest word to say in an apology?

Fianna Fáil TD Barry Cowen: The sweets for children comparison was such a reach, folk on the opposition benches didn’t immediately go bananas.
When it comes to apologies, Barry Cowen’s, last week, was exceptional. It was a jewel. Such a small, imperfect jewel. But before we get to that apology let’s us first examine what he said that required an apology. Here it is. With some observations.
“It can be difficult to disprove motion of no confidence in three minutes.”
— If you’ve limited time at your disposal, why waste it stating the obvious? And also, why are you knocking down an unmade and untrue proposition? Nobody in their wildest dreams ever figured that Barry Cowen’s three minutes would disprove the motion of no confidence.
“Listening to the heckling that’s going on here, you’d almost feel like a contestant on Countdown but I’ll get straight to it anyway.”
— But you haven’t, Deputy Cowen, you haven’t. You have used up a fifth of your first minute commenting on the Opposition doing what they’re supposed to do.
“The opposition are piggybacking on the genuine fears and concerns of very very vulnerable people. The eviction ban was always meant to be temporary. I don’t dispute that we remain in a housing urgency or crisis. We’ve already heard from government speakers about the record funding and various initiatives implemented by this government. I won’t repeat it.”
— Well, there’s a mercy. It’s only when you see this stuff in print that it becomes clear that this man isn’t setting out a coherent argument to persuade, but emitting non-sequiturs out of him, none of them building on the previous one. Oh, and using up more words to announce what he’s NOT going to do.
“But I would contend that the full fruits of that labour is continuing to emerge.”
— A plural noun takes a plural verb, but not as far as Cowen is concerned.
“Keeping or extending the ban isn’t necessarily going to solve this crisis into the future.”
— See? He’s at it again. Disproving something nobody has ever claimed. Not Peter McVerry, not the Samaritans, not Focus Point. Nary one of them has ever proposed extending the eviction ban would solve the housing crisis. Ever.
“It’s like making sweets free for children. It’s fine for a little while but ultimately detrimental to the greater need.”
— What? No, seriously, what? He’s supposed to be a clever guy and yet he’s comparing terrified tenants to hypothetical children sugar-rushed on charity confectionary.
The sweets for children comparison was such a reach, folk on the opposition benches didn’t immediately go bananas. It took a while to sink in, and then bananas were widely distributed
This gave Barry the opportunity to go on Clare Byrne’s programme to apologise. As a case study in how not to apologise, what he said deserves study. It’s a brillian guide to how not to say sorry.
“What I said was just an analogy in order to get the message across that short-term solutions don’t always work in the long term.”
— The offended don’t give a sugar if it was an analogy, a metaphor or a trapezoid road sign, so there was no point in starting there. If he went on the programme to apologise, and there’s not much evidence to support that thesis, where to start was simple. “I’m sorry” would have been a stellar opening gambit. Lousy apologies always divert somewhere else to avoid the simple taking of blame implicit in “I’m sorry.”
Then he went on to announce that he has four children himself and would never say anything derogatory about children. Now, this one is classic. There’s a long track record of politicians trotting out their children to prove their father is a right-on guy.
So you’ve had a string of lads coming out after they’ve done or said something outrageously misogynistic or sexist, making the claim that because they have female offspring, they couldn’t be misogynistic or sexist
No study has ever proven paternity of girls to ensure feminism. But the lads seem convinced that trotting out their kids makes them more relatable.
The Cowen children were trotted out to prove their father would never say anything derogatory about children. I don’t know about you, but I’ve encountered fathers of several children who have managed, with ease, to be derogatory about kids. Here, again, is where the deputy’s thought processes don’t seem to join up. Plus, nobody accused him of saying anything derogatory about children, for the very good reason that he didn’t. Saying that kids getting free sweets doesn’t solve long-term problems isn’t derogatory to children. It doesn’t make much sense, but no child is going to slap an injunction on you if you say it.
The insult is to the very people he himself described as “very very vulnerable” because they may be evicted from a rented property and rendered homeless. He suggested extending the eviction ban was the equivalent of giving children sweets for free. Right. How does that grab you, the twenty families he said had sought his help? Make you feel good to be compared to sugar-addicted children?
That’s his problem, right there. That’s the offence. For which, you might believe, he went on radio to apologise. Or maybe to educate the offended, which is always more fun than saying sorry.
“I’d like people to hear the context in which I said that one sentence.”
— See? It was only one sentence. (Which seems to suggest that if you and I have a falling out, and I call you a cross-eyed, dumb-as-a-tree hypocritical turd, sure that wouldn’t offend you at all because it’s just one sentence in among a load of others.) He then rhymed off all the other things he had said in his three minutes, leaving out the reference to Countdown.
Someone needs to tell the deputy that a big, big box of chocolate truffles surrounding a dead rat doesn’t, generally, make the moribund rodent more acceptable, and establishing how many boring generalities you packed into your three minutes surrounding the offensive comment doesn’t minimise the offence. He’s reputedly a clever guy. He’ll understand that. Won’t he?
But the most important thing he needs to know is that “if” is a lethal word in any apology.
“If people were offended by what I said, it wasn’t my intention. It wasn’t my intention. What more do you want me to say?”
— Well, “sorry” would help, see above. Or even, if he wanted to give it a whole sentence: “I’m sorry for saying something stupidly offensive.” Remember when I hypothetically called you all those names, earlier? If I subsequently tell you that offending you wasn’t my intention, I’m not sure it makes you feel a whole lot better. It also indicates absolute unwillingness on my part to take responsibility for offending you. You basically insulted yourself because you took the wrong meaning out of it. Barry Cowen said something stupid and offensive. We might have forgiven him – even liked him – if he’d gone on radio and said sorry. Instead, he managed to make everything worse.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates