Conditional apologies
Can an apology be conditional and still be an apology? The usual political apology goes something like this: “If people were offended, I apologize.” (I’m not referring simply to Senator Clinton here—this is a long-standing trope among politicians and public figures in general, resorted to immediately following the other beloved phrase, “My remarks were taken out of context”—a statement always true in the sense that one doesn’t quote the entire speech or interview in which the remark occurred, for example.)
To say “If people were offended, then I apologize,” when it is obvious that people were offended (otherwise why be saying anything at all?) does resemble an apology. But it’s not an apology, because it puts the onus on those offended: “It’s their fault, not mine. They were silly to take offense, so I have to say something more or less apologetic, but I’m going to make it clear who’s at fault here.” (The quoted matter being thought, not spoken aloud.) Logically, since clearly people were offended, snip the subordinate clause and simply say “I apologize.” Why not? The obvious reason: “Because then it sounds as though I were at fault—and I’m NOT.”
So the only true apology is an unconditional apology.
Here’s an example for you to consider, from TalkingPointsMemo:
UPDATE: See this post for the non-equivalence of “I regret” and “I apologize.”
