Perpetrators, Whistleblowers — and Enablers
At a time when we have good reason to be thinking about cover-ups, two first rate, classic cover-up movies have recently been released: “Dark Waters” and “Bombshell.” The first shows how the Dupont Corporation secretly poisoned the water supply of an Appalachian town and was finally exposed. The second is the story of sexual harassment at Fox News and how Roger Ailes was stopped. Both are tales of evil perpetrators and heroic whistleblowers -“black hats” vs. “white hats.” The powerful are finally brought to justice by the vulnerable. This makes for satisfying drama and it has been a formula for cover up movies from “Serpico” to “Spotlight.”
But something important is missing here. Abuses at Dupont and Fox went on for decades before they were exposed. Ask yourself: How many people had to have known? Yes, there were perpetrators and whistleblowers, but there were also enablers, lots of them – people who knew and did or said nothing. People who were complicit in various ways. People like us.
Complicity may be nothing more than “turning a blind eye” or it may be knowingly participating in concealing the truth. It includes whatever enables the perpetrators to continue their wrongdoing with impunity.
Enablers played a crucial role in the events leading up to impeachment. President Trump has been charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. However, Trump did not act alone. For example, enablers in the White House tried to hide the evidence of his phone call with the President of Ukraine, recognizing that it was incriminating. They might have succeeded had there not been a particularly courageous whistleblower. Regardless of the outcome of President Trump’s trial, it is highly unlikely that the enablers will be held accountable for their role in this.
Turning back to the movies can shed some light on the variety of roles enablers play and the forms complicity takes. While the movies heavily stress the “black hat” vs “white hat” drama, they don’t exclude enablers altogether. In the Dupont case, there are the townspeople who don’t want to see Dupont as anything but benevolent; the scientists who distorted or suppressed their research; and the newspaper that depicts the search for the truth about the poison as a threat to jobs. In “Bombshell,” there is the woman who serves as a receptionist to Ailes and clearly knows what is going on behind closed doors. And there is the young victim who confronts Megyn Kelly with the consequences of Kelly’s silence all these years. Silence allowed Ailes to continue his predatory behavior. Complicity is not a victimless crime.
We have accepted the “black hats” vs. “white hats” narrative for too long, perhaps because it lets us off the hook. In the Hollywood view, we are uninvolved in the dramas of wrongdoing that take place around us. We are bystanders or spectators, like the audience in the movies. But in real life, we are all participants. It is easy to tell ourselves “This is not my business” or “The evidence is inconclusive” instead of making it our business to see if our suspicions are well-founded.
So next time you hear of a cover up that has been exposed – and there are always plenty: sexual abuse in the church, the military or the universities; police misconduct; corporations that cover up the dangers of their products – ask yourself “How can they do such a thing?”
And then ask “How could we let this happen?” If we can get some answers to this question – to the question of the role of enablers – perhaps we can do better at preventing persistent wrongdoing.
