Learning that a public official has been caught doing something naughty seldom rouses my interest. People go into politics and “public service” for a handful of reasons, but getting away with it, for a wide range of values of “it,” is high among them. The profusion of inexplicable multimillionaires among our Congressvermin is Exhibit One.

     But a concerted, broadly implicative cover-up does make me sit up. Cover-ups, if the actions being concealed are criminal, are themselves criminal. More, they hint that there’s a lot more that we don’t yet know. There’s a special legal term for it: misprision. He who is found guilty of the misprision of a felony faces a penalty similar to that inflicted on the felon.

     Just now, the biggest cover-up in American history is being exposed for what it was. The list of high officials involved includes a former president. And it’s virtually certain that we don’t yet know everything.

     I shan’t bother to review the facts, as they’ve been blathered about by many other commentators. What I’d like to talk about today is the psychology of the thing, both among those involved in the cover-up, those involved in ferreting out the facts, and us private citizens who’ve learned about the machinations to our dismay and steadily building outrage.

     The conviction required of those who would work to conceal wrongdoing among public officials is simple: They must be confident that their work won’t be exposed. This is especially so when the conspirators – really, there’s no better word for them – were uninvolved in the wrongdoing. The cover-up itself would expose them to legal hazard they would not have suffered otherwise. While that does not appear to apply to the “Trump-Russia” hoax, it’s important to consider it when analyzing other cover-up conspiracies.

     With regard to the “Trump-Russia” hoax, the conspirators’ motivation of importance is radical partisanship: the elevation of partisan advantage over all other considerations. The radical partisan is a strange creature. His orientation goes well beyond pulling the “straight-ticket” lever in the voting booth. His partisanry has become a religion of sorts. He treats its tenets and decrees as unquestionable, no matter their content.

     The forces striving to unmask the cover-up and its participants may not share the radical-partisan characteristic. However, in politics there will always be some of that. It manifests in persons admittedly willing to violate all standards of law and justice to “get the conspirators.” Watch out for these people. They’re dangerous – and there are likely some among those working to expose the participants in the conspiracy.

     In the world beyond the corridors of power, we have:

1. Dismissive cynics;
2. “Concerned citizens;”
3. “News junkies;”
4. Partisans.

     A man in the first group will have the “they’re all thieves and always have been” conviction. He assumes that corruption pervades the political elite. He believes – often from experience – that “voting the rascals out” will only install cleverer rascals. Thus, he does not bother with the details of something such as the “Trump-Russia hoax.” He concentrates on keeping out from under the Establishment’s crosshairs. In some ways, he’s the sanest of the lot.

     A man in the second group probably received a standard dose of civic education and has accepted its premises. He believes that the citizenry can police the State. More, he believes that a citizen has a responsibility to participate in the policing. He votes, certainly, but he also looks for ways to involve others in the process of unmasking not only the original wrongdoers but also those who’ve attempted to conceal their crimes. Sadly – for he is a good man – he knows much disappointment at times like ours.

     A man in the third group regards the whole affair as entertainment. He may be fascinated by it, but he treats it essentially as a substitute for football. The involutions, moves, and countermoves are just plays to him. What matters about them is their effectiveness or lack of it, not whether they serve justice or any other abstract ideal. He has some commonality with the cynics, for “who wins” will have no bearing on the rest of his life.

     The partisan, like those involved in the cover-up on either side, is concerned entirely with whether his party does well or ill out of the affair. The revelations may exonerate some and imprison others, but what does that matter compared to who will control Congress after the midterms? His zeal can move him to advocate measures that would collapse the Republic. It would be pleasant to be confident that he knows not what he does, but justification for that belief is often hard to find.

     I’m less concerned with the outcome of the revelations and investigations than I am with the reactions of the people around me. There’s a good chance that there will be social upheavals as bad as the George Floyd / BLM riots of a few years back. Such convulsions could make large swathes of the country difficult if not impossible to live in. Ask former residents of any of the afflicted cities what that orgy of looting and destruction did to their quality of life.

     The distribution of the above psychologies among the American people is the key. The outcomes for the various public personages involved is arguably of less moment. I doubt that anyone involved in the cover-up – for or against – understands that completely. Too much attention is going to the political consequences. Not enough is being paid to the possible social and economic consequences.

     See also Matt Margolis’s column on the scandal. And have a nice day.