The invaluably important U. S. House “January 6th Committee,” got one thing wrong. It was, however, a Big Thing. Regrettably its conclusion read in part: “The central cause of Jan. 6 was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed. None of the events of Jan. 6 would have happened without him.” (Italics mine.) So strong was the Committee’s emphasis on the guilt of a single individual, Trump, that the headline in the New York Times read, “Jan. 6 Committee Blames ‘One Man’ for Riot.”
Notwithstanding this final focus on “one man,” to read the Committee’s report, or to have followed its proceedings, is to understand full well that what happened on January 6th required the ready, willing, and able participation not just of a single individual, but of a cast of thousands. The attack on the U. S. Capitol would have been impossible without them! These thousands – these followers, these enablers – were then as responsible as was the president himself for the violence. He was the principal – but they were his agents. Trump’s indispensable agents.
Different agents played different parts. Mark Meadows, the president’s chief of staff, was intimately involved in what happened. So, albeit to a lesser extent, were other members of the Trump administration, and some members of Congress, and some members of the political, financial, and media elites, and so on. Then there were the rioters, the attackers themselves. Though they did not, obviously, have the same access to the president, it was they who did the deed. Who stormed the Capitol, bashed down doors and bashed in heads. Who did – as opposed to refusing to do – what they assumed the president wanted them to do.
I define followers as “subordinates how have less power, authority, and influence than do their superiors and who therefore usually, but not invariably, fall into line.”* On January 6th, some of the president’s followers balked. They refused to fall into line. But others of his followers did not balk. They did fall into line which is why a few American lives were lost and many more threatened.
I define enablers as “followers who allow or even encourage their leaders to engage in, and then to persist in, behaviors that are destructive.”** Enablers are, then, a subset of followers. On January 6, 2021, some of the president’s followers chose to enable him, others of the president’s followers chose differently.
For all its important work, then, the January 6th Committee missed an opportunity. It did not need to be reductionist or simplictic. It did not need to blame “one man” for the riot. It could easily have added a few more concluding sentences – sentences that would have educated the American people on how events like these come to pass. How complex the process is, as opposed to the handiwork of just one man.
It has been reported that the Committee’s focus on Trump was controversial. That most on the Committee (and most staff) preferred its final report not marginalize the roles of other actors including the violent ones, their financial supporters, and their sympathizers in law enforcement. But on this as on many other things the Committee’s Vice Chair, Elizabeth Cheney, prevailed. It was she who was adamant on having the Committee not just focus on Trump but fixate on him.
Cheney, famously a Republican, played a heroic role on the January 6th Committee. By every account she sacrificed at least her short term political career to work unrelentingly hard to hold those responsible for what happened on January 6 to account. Moreover, she was right. The leader, President Trump, played a pivitol role. But she was wrong in her reductionism. Trump himself never even appeared at the Capitol. The damage was literally inflicted by his followers. And it was literally facilitated by his enablers who, in tandem with their leader were hellbent on dismantling democracy instead of defending it.
——————-
*From Barbara Kellerman, Followership (Harvard Business School Press, 2008).
**From Barbara Kellerman, The Enablers (Cambridge University Press, 2021).