This isn’t going to be some sanctimonious hand-wringing column in which I implore President Trump to discover his better nature and apologize for his behavior concerning Ukraine. I expect him to do nothing of the sort. It is, instead, an exploration of a political question: What if Trump were capable of saying, “I’m sorry”?
As a result of his unorthodox political ascent, Trump’s refusal to ever apologize or acknowledge wrongdoing has come to be treated as a sort of superpower. Mortal politicians who are caught in a lie or misdeed tend to shift and squirm and risk coming off looking weak. Trump, on the other hand, has been able to exude a sense of confidence and project strength to his supporters by refusing to apologize. His tendency has been representative of a broader cultural trend, documented recently by the Atlantic’s Megan Garber, of backlash against apologies.
But what if the interpretation of the political benefits of Trump’s unapologetic nature is wrong? Who’s to say a version of Trump, with the same policies and economic performance but with occasional contriteness, wouldn’t be more popular?
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were both politically more successful presidents than Trump has proven so far. They both were elected to two terms by large margins and both enjoyed higher approval ratings in office. And when their presidencies were rocked by scandals, they formulated apologies.
In Reagan’s case, in a March 1987 Oval Office address on Iran-Contra, he acknowledged the evidence showed his administration traded arms for hostages and that it was a mistake. While insisting he was not directly aware of the details, he said, “I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration.” He conceded that his management style had failed in this case.
He outlined a series of actions he had taken, including replacing key staff, and he pledged to help the congressional oversight process. He said he had learned lessons from his mistakes and that he was eager to move on, while cautioning, “This in no way diminishes the importance of the other continuing investigations.”
Clinton, after famously denying a sexual relationship with “that woman,” admitted, “indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss [Monica] Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong.” He ultimately categorized it as a private matter and denied any attempts to obstruct justice, and urged, “it is past time to move on.”
For our purposes here, it’s not worth going through some of the important differences between those cases and the Ukraine story or debating whether their apologies were genuine. The key point is that politically, the apologies played a crucial role in rehabilitating Reagan and Clinton. Both left office with approval ratings eclipsing 60%, according to Gallup.
What’s more, Reagan’s apology did not result in him being seen as a wimp. Three months later, he would stand at Brandenburg Gate and declare, “tear down this wall.” To this day, conservatives view Reagan as the epitome of a strong leader.
Trump has already gone so far into defending his conduct on the Ukraine matter as “perfect” that there isn’t much room for an apology. But if he decided it was in his political interests to give one, he could find a way. He could, for instance, argue that althoguh what he did wasn’t illegal, it was in hindsight, an error in judgment. Trump could insist he learned his lessons and declare he’s going to encourage all current and former White House officials to testify and cooperate fully with congressional investigators.
Of course, such a labored apology would be derided by his critics. But for a politician that likes to constantly shock people, anything resembling an apology from Trump would shake Washington and disrupt the Democrats’ strategy, which hinges in part on the expectation of total defiance.
If Trump were to offer some semblance of an apology, it would make it a lot easier for vulnerable Republicans to oppose impeachment without defending the underlying behavior. It would give them the added talking point, “Look, Trump has already apologized for his actions, but I just don’t think those actions rise to the level of removing him from office during an election year.”
It could also play into Trump’s own 2020 reelection campaign by demonstrating to persuadable voters that contrary to what people say, he does actually have the capacity to acknowledge mistakes and grow. And it’s not as if his loyal supporters will suddenly abandon him.
It’s undeniably true that Trump was unapologetic in 2016 and won the election. But it’s possible he won despite being unapologetic, rather than because of it. It’s also possible that the tactic worked in the past, but that different circumstances require different tactics.
