Kathleen Parker November 8, 2013

President Obama is no lip-biting, tear-streaked, chin-trembling apologist.

When he said Thursday that he was sorry for the health-care mess-up, he performed the mea culpa as well as — if not better than — anyone inrecent history. With Trumanesque resolve, he may as well have said, “The devalued dollar stops here.”

He’s sorry that some people havebeen inconvenienced by HealthCare.gov’s computer disaster. He’s sorrythat some people have lost the policies he promised they could keep.He’s sorry that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) wasn’t adequately“crafted.”

But is he sorry that he intentionally misled people? I must have missed that part. Here’s what he said:

“I am sorry that they [people] are finding themselves in this situationbased on assurances they got from me. We’ve got to work hard to makesure that they know we hear them and that we’re going to do everythingwe can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as aconsequence of this.”

A well-delivered apology can often be enough to absolve the“misleader.” The key to redemption, however, is the sense that theapology is heartfelt and sincere. Most important, the apology must bespecific to the affront. In this case, the sin isn’t the mess but thepromise the White House knew as early as 2010 it couldn’t keep. Harsher critics would call it the deliberate intent to deceive.

I tend to be generous with the benefit of doubt. Can I imagine a discussion in the White House wherein speechwriters and advisers told the president that full disclosure of the nuts and bolts — that millions would lose policies, which weren’t that good to beginwith; that their rates would go up so insurance companies could coverthe previously uninsured — would be too confusing?

Yes. I can imagine it because that’s exactly what happened, according to former White House speechwriter Jon Favreau. Moreover, the aides reckoned, the next several paragraphs that would be required by the truth would drag audiences through weeds considered too high for most attention spans. Such hubris puts one in mind of anexchange in Woody Allen’s “Manhattan”:

“This is an audience that’s raised on television, their standards have beensystematically lowered over the years. These guys sit in front of theirsets and the gamma rays eat the white cells of their brains out!”

Given such thinking, the truth was too much for TV. Not onlywould people be confused but also the tea party crazies would reenactthe summer of 2009, when town-hall meetings turned into circuses ofscreeching malcontents.

If there’s one thing Barack Obamadislikes more than schmoozing Congress, it’s having to explain hisbrilliant ideas to mortals of lesser intelligence. Come to think of it,the latter may be viewed as justifying the former — at least from thepresident’s perspective. Thus, his advisers said, keep it simple for the stupids, though not necessarily with that precise wording.

Sothey did. So simple, in fact, that it was simply wrong. Did they reallythink no one would notice when they received cancellation notices andtheir premiums suddenly doubled on the exchanges?

The other ruleof effective apologies is that they must come from authentic remorserather than at the tip of a sword. Obama had no choice once caught andit was no longer possible to deny reality. That reality was furtherenhanced when 16 Senate Democrats, 15 of whom are up for reelection next year, stormed the White House barricades to express their outrage to the president.

Commenting afterward, Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado sent out a release saying he urged the president to extend the enrollment period and ensure that the ACA insurance exchange Web site is secure.

The White House issued its own release, saying the meeting was “to discuss the progress that’s been made” and “hear their input on existing challenges.”

Well, that’s one way of putting it.

Some consent to regret is better than none, I suppose, but the ultimate test of an apology is whether it results in restored trust. It isn’t at allclear that Obama accomplished this with his exclusive, one-on-oneinterview with NBC’s Chuck Todd. A straight, detailed talk directly tothe American people would seem a better bet for the longer run.

Detailing the overhaul of a sixth of the economy may not make good TV, but theAmerican people deserve better than “Sorry about the mess.”

True contrition swells all hearts.