Rob Porter. Louis CK. Mario Battali. Three men that have been accused of repeated abusive behavior. They all have attempted to reenter the public spotlight.
When Louis CK wrote in November 2017, "These stories are true," there was never a direct apology to the women he allegedly abused. He wrote, "The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly. I have been remorseful of my actions." There's no actual semblance of "I'm sorry" to the alleged victims. The closest he gets is, "And I can hardly wrap my head around the scope of hurt I brought on them." Note the possible subtext there—I don't really comprehend how I have hurt them. To close, Louis CK wrote, "I will now step back and take a long time to listen." That "step back" included surprise sets at a comedy club in August 2018, and he started a comedy tour late 2018.
Mario Battali posted, "My behavior was wrong and there are no excuses. I take full responsibility," and then added a recipe for cinnamon rolls at the end. There was no actual apology to the alleged victims. Guess what people were mainly talking about when his "apology" came out? That there was a recipe was at the end—not about his actual behavior. The ploy worked. As of April 2018, he was consulting with others about making a comeback.
Rob Porter showed his contrition through a statement in February 2018, "These outrageous allegations are simply false. I have been transparent and truthful about these vile claims, but I will not further engage publicly with a coordinated smear campaign," and by writing a pro-Trump Wall Street Journal op-ed titled, "Trump's Big Trade Opening" last week.
Both of Rob Porter's ex-wives, Jeannie Willoughby and Colbie Holderness, allege Porter physically, emotionally, and verbally abused them. Willoughby was granted an emergency protective order against Porter due to his violent behavior. Think that these are "just" isolated incidents? More than 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been the victims of violence by an intimate partner, according to the CDC in 2010.
Of Porter's op-ed, Willoughby wrote, "Rob has yet to publicly show regret or contrition for his actions. Giving him a voice before he has done that critical work elevates his opinions above my and Colbie’s dignity."
This brings up an excellent point—when people have been accused of abusive behavior, should they be given a public forum before addressing the nature of those accusations?
Let's assume that abusers have at least narcissistic tendencies, if not diagnosable Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). (To clarify, none of these men have disclosed a diagnosis of NPD.) Part of having narcissistic tendencies is a feeling of entitlement. This includes romantic, academic, sexual, and divine entitlement. They feel they are above society's rules and laws—the narcissist thinks, rules are for people that aren't smart enough to get around them. That thought process is one of a narcissist's major flaws—he thinks he skated through on his intellect alone, rather than a team of spin doctors, enablers, a willing publication, and sheer luck.
Narcissists also feed off a feeling of power. Giving someone a voice with public reach again reinforces his entitlement and also his narcissistic rage that he was "done wrong" by his accusers.
Porter most likely did not come to the Wall Street Journal through his dazzling writing or policy skills. He most likely hired a damage control team, and was told to "lay low," with a carefully orchestrated return into public life. Do you think Porter submitted his op-ed like everyone else who appears in the Journal? Not likely.
The president of the United States gave Porter a pass, brushing aside his alleged abuse by tweeting "Peoples [sic] lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due [sic] Process [sic]?" It should be noted that due process applies to the judicial system, not to the court of public opinion.
Would issuing an apology impact a narcissist's later behaviors? Most likely not. Arrogance and a lack of remorse prevent that. Narcissists rarely feel remorse or contrition. However, the fact that narcissists would need to make a public apology in order to reenter the public arena, particularly when they have convinced themselves they did nothing wrong, may have an impact. Narcissists, above all, want to keep their image squeaky-clean. A true apology helps expose narcissists' true character, gives validity to survivors' experiences, and serves as a cautionary tale to others who may come into contact with the narcissist.
Arguments are, "Well, he needs to earn money somehow," "He has the right to hire damage control," and "These allegations may not be true." A counter to all these arguments are, what if the allegations are true? What has the alleged perpetrator actually learned? Lay low for a while, and everything will be forgotten? By giving such a powerful megaphone to alleged abusers without addressing allegations or taking some modicum of responsibility, it is giving the alleged perpetrator a "there, there" pat on the head. The responsibility lies not only with the alleged perpetrator, but also his damage control team, his enablers, and the publication itself. They have profited from sweeping alleged behaviors under the rug.
Abuse effects can last a lifetime, and giving a public forum to an alleged abuser without any acknowledgment of that abuse can not only hinder, but prevent the survivors' healing process.
