opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Tom Rosshirt
Tom Rosshirt
26 Apr 2013

Earlier this month, I traveled down to Texas to visit my dad. Twenty years after buying the house that he and … Read More.

19 Apr 2013
Will the Boston Attack Kill Immigration Reform?

As news came out Friday on the background of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, TV commentators … Read More.

12 Apr 2013
We're Not in This Together

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who died April 8 in London at the age of 87, was often … Read More.

Rush, Barack, Rick and the Pope


I'm sorry, but I've got to talk about these apologies.

Some apologies show weakness; some show strength. And some people can't tell the difference. Let's sort this out.

First, Rush Limbaugh. I'm surprised at Rush — but not for calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute." That I expect.

I'm surprised at Rush for apologizing. Apologizing violates the deal he has with his fans, which is this: Rush says the darker things his listeners are thinking but would get fired for saying if they said them at work. And Rush says them in cleverer, funnier ways than they would, to a wider audience and with impunity, which means, by definition, he does not apologize. Rush's job is to make his listeners feel better about what they think, to make them feel respectable. But by apologizing, he's acknowledging that what he said was not respectable — and that breaks the deal with his listeners, because if Rush is not respectable, the people who like him are not respectable, either.

The biggest reason I'm surprised that Rush apologized, though, is that it shows weakness — and bullies dare not show weakness, lest it undermine their phony show of strength. Not every apology is a sign of weakness, but Rush's was, and here is a list of reasons for that:

It was out of character; he clearly meant to say what he was apologizing for; he apologized only after a storm of protest; he defined very narrowly what he was apologizing for ("I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words"); he did it to recover some power he lost by saying what he said, and thus it was done out of anxious, calculating self-interest. This is a case study of an apology that shows weakness.

Second apology: President Barack Obama apologized for the burning of Qurans in Afghanistan. This apology was different from Limbaugh's in two important ways: Obama was apologizing not for something he did, but on behalf of others, and he was acting in the hope of saving the lives of others, not to save himself.

Yet after Obama apologized, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said his apology "shows weakness." Let's come back to this.

Third apology: On the first Sunday of Lent in 2000, then-Pope John Paul II issued numerous apologies for the behavior of Christians throughout history, saying, "We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed toward followers of other religions."

He apologized for the acts of Christians who have "violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions."

During his trip to the Holy Land later that month, the pope visited Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, and said, "The Catholic Church ...

is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians."

Finally, in the culmination of his trip, he went to pray at the Western Wall. Following the tradition of Jewish worshippers, the pope inserted a written prayer in the cracks of the wall. It read:

"God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the Nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant."

These apologies were characteristic of John Paul II's papacy. Previously, he had apologized to people in Latin America for the cruelty of conquistadors and missionaries. He apologized in Senegal for the slave trade.

These apologies were given from strength. They were offered freely, unforced by events, and accepted responsibility for the sins of others — not to regain power, but to rebuild good will with those who had been wounded.

Back to Rick. Santorum has made his strong Catholic faith a centerpiece of his campaign and criticized conventional notions of the separation of church and state. So what does his criticism of Obama tell us about his theology of apology?

Taking Pope John Paul II as a model, would a President Santorum issue an apology, for example, to Iran for the U.S. overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh, which paved the way for decades of tyranny and torture under the shah? Or does Santorum think that Pope John Paul II's apologies showed weakness? Or does he believe that the church's example should have no influence in the operation of the state?

Tom Rosshirt was a national security speechwriter for President Bill Clinton and a foreign affairs spokesman for Vice President Al Gore. Email him at To find out more about Tom Rosshirt and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



2 Comments | Post Comment
The korans in question were being used to pass messages. The military is under no obligation to supply korans to prisoners, in the first place. The military is tasked with defending the guards. Removing the korans was acceptable. Destroying spy material, by whatever means is acceptable. When obama apologized, loss of life was not averted. Political correctnss is tyranny.
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:37 PM
I agree that "slut" was over the top, but Sandra Fluke prostituted herself metaphorically in the public arena, with the intonation of a spoiled brat. $3,000 a year for birth control pills! No way! More like $15 to $20 a month (3 to 4 lattes). Most doctors dole out 3 to 4 months free with each check up, provided gratis by the drug suppliers. Oral contraception has traditionally been covered under most health care plans when deemed medically necessary. Regarding Rush Limbaugh, he is a bombastic entertainer and, you are right, speaks aloud things that most of us would not say. We wouldn't have the nerve to say the things he does, but I don't think we are living vicariously through him. He is no more or less pompous than many other entertainers, liberal or conservative. Let's just say I imagine his insurance plan, as many do, probably covers his Viagra pills. No insurance plan should cover Viagra OR birth control. Medically necessary has become very vague. If you don't want a baby, keep your pants on!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Nanette
Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:15 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Tom Rosshirt
Apr. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 12 Feb 2016
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne FieldsUpdated 12 Feb 2016
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 12 Feb 2016

15 Mar 2013 What's in a Name?

8 Feb 2013 Go Easy on the Extremists

23 Mar 2012 Changing a Toxic Culture