William L. Benoit
University of Missouri

I will use my theory of image repair discourse (Benoit, 1995, 1997) to analyze Clinton's August 17, 1998 speech. My typology (with brief examples) is available on line: http://www.missouri.edu/~commwlb/image.repair.strategies.html.

The Accusations

It is important to consider any defense in the context of the accusations to which it responds (Ryan, 1982). Clinton was faced with multiple accusations in this situation: he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, he lied in the Paula Jones lawsuit, he suborned perjury and/or obstructed justice regarding his relationship with Lewinsky, he and/or his wife had committed wrong-doing in their Whitewater investments. These, then, were the accusations to which Clinton responded in this speech.

Critical Analysis of Clinton's Image Repair Discourse

I will discuss his responses to each of these accusations in turn (although these allegations were not equally important in my mind; the middle two are the more serious ones in my opinion).

Clinton had an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinsky

Clinton conceded this accusation (presumably because of the "smoking dress") "Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate." He engaged in mortification, confessing that "it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible." One feature of his use of mortification that is unusual was his declaration of personal responsibility: "I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private," and "I take my responsibility for my part in all of this." However, his use of mortification was overshadowed by his attacks on Kenneth Starr (discussed below).

Clinton lied in the Paula Jones lawsuit

He used differentiation briefly here ("While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information"), but basically he conceded this charge ("I misled people"). His use of mortification was more clear-cut in response to this accusation than the previous one: "I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that." Regret or remorse is an important constituent of an apology. However, the fact that he didn't actually say "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" irritated politicians and pundits alike. He also briefly used denial here, pointing out that the Jones "lawsuit... has since been dismissed," implying that it had no basis. He also briefly uses attack accuser here, declaring that this lawsuit was "politically inspired."

Clinton suborned perjury and/or obstructed justice

In contrast to his response to previous accusations, this one receives a forceful and direct denial: "I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action." He also uses attack accuser in his speech, primarily to respond to these allegations: "The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation. This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people." He laments "the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives."

Related to this strategy (attacking accuser) is his use of transcendence. This strategy occurs in three manifestations. First, he declares that he mislead people because of his embarrassment and his desire to protect his family (implying that these are more important values). Second, Clinton argued strongly that these matters were private and not Starr's (or the public's) business. I answered "questions about my private life, questions no American citizen would ever want to answer." And later he declared that "Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God... But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family. It's nobody's business but ours. Even presidents have private lives... It is time to... get on with our national life." Thirdly, and closely related to the second use of transcendence, he argued that there was much more important public business than investigating his relationship with Lewinsky: "Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time -- to move on. We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security. And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century." Thus, transcendence was a major component of his image repair effort.

He also used two minor strategies here. First, he bolstered, declaring that "I answered their questions truthfully." Then he promised some extremely vague corrective action: "I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. Nothing is more important to me personally." This completed his response to the third accusation.

The Clintons committed wrong-doing in Whitewater

His response to this allegation is denial: "An independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago." Starr did not manage to turn up much evidence to support the area of the inquiry, which is important because the rationale for Starr's investigation began with suspicions of misdeed connected with Whitewater. He also used transcendence, observing that the Whitewater inquiry concerned: "private business dealings twenty years ago." Thus, transcendence cropped up again in his defense.

Thus, Clinton used denial, attack accuser, transcendence, and mortification as major components of his response to these accusations. He also briefly used differentiation and corrective action. As I hinted above, politicians (especially conservative ones) and pundits did not like this speech. It wasn't sufficiently contrite for their tastes, and Clinton should not have (in their opinion) attacked Starr. However, public opinion polls suggested that the majority of Americans were fairly satisfied with his discourse. Their reaction may become clear as I evaluate his discourse.

Evaluation of Clinton's Defense

Before evaluating the effectiveness of his discourse, it is important to determine his (probable) intended audience. There were many potential targets for this persuasive message. He could have been speaking to Hillary, Chelsea, and other close personal friends. My assumption is that he dealt with them privately. He could have been speaking primarily to Kenneth Starr, but I doubt that. He could have been addressing Republicans and conservatives, but that seems unlikely as well. He could have been speaking to the denizens of the beltway (and to media pundits and commentators), but that seems unlikely too. He also could have been addressing observers in foreign countries. However, I believe he was trying to persuade the ordinary citizens of the country, those who voted for him (or people who voted for Dole or Perot but who didn't object to Clinton as President). I don't think it was possible to be successful with all of these groups (for example, hard core conservatives, in my opinion, would have only been barely satisfied with a resignation), and I doubt Clinton tried to persuade them all. However, the general public (minus hard core conservatives) were probably his intended audience.

First, Clinton admitted having an inappropriate relationship. Most of his audience already believed that he had done so, which meant that this was not a particularly damaging concession. Most people also thought he had mislead us, if not directly lied to us, about this relationship. I believe he weaseled (used differentiation: "legally correct") in order to try to avoid being prosecuted for perjury later. However, while it may or may not have protected him from future legal action, differentiating in this way was not especially good for his image. Most people don't like weaseling.

Second, he attacked Starr's investigation for going on too long and costing too much. The pundits and commentators reacted negatively, but most Americans agreed with Clinton. He argued that his private life should be private, and most people felt this way too (in fact, I believe Starr's personal popularity was lower than Clinton's at this point).

Third, he used transcendence, arguing that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky (however wrong) was private, not public, business. Again, most Americans (but not pundits, commentators, or hard-core conservatives) agreed with this claim. Thus, the main points in his discourse were well-selected, if you assume that the (non hard-core conservative) American voter was his primary audience.

There were some things Clinton could have done better. First, as noted above, his use of differentiation (weaseling) was not very persuasive. Second, he could have been more contrite. He could have said "I'm sorry" and/or "I apologize." Although I think his expression of regret was enough, and I believe it (barely) satisfied most of his intended audience, it was obvious that pundits were dissatisfied and they wouldn't stop complaining about it. Third, a very important question was left unanswered in his defense: If he lied to (or, charitably, mislead) us when he denied a relationship with Miss Lewinsky, why should we believe his denials that he suborned perjury or obstructed justice?

Conclusion

Still, I evaluate his speech as fairly effective (with some weaknesses) given the nature of his (probable) intended audience. As I noted above, the commentators and pundits hated this speech, and they wouldn't let the issue rest even though many people wanted it dropped. This reaction probably convinced many voters that this issue was partisan, an impression that was reinforced when Congress released the secret grand jury testimony including Clinton's video-taped deposition. However, the reaction of pundits forced him to give the White House Prayer Breakfast speech. Although I believe that voters in the mid-term election were voting on local candidates, rather than voting on a national referendum, many Republicans ran hard on character and Clinton, hoping to pick up many seats in Congress. However, the voters weren't buying it, and the Republicans actually lost some ground in 1998.

References

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, apologies: A theory of image restoration discourse. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image restoration discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23, 177-186.

Ryan, H. R. (1982). Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 256-61.