It has become a truth universally acknowledged that the cover-up is always worse than the crime. This theory reached its apotheosis during the Lewinsky scandal. While President Clinton's behavior with his overeager White House intern was, at best, inappropriate, it hardly reached the level of a crime, Lewinsky being a willing participant of legal age. Had the President merely 'fessed up, he would have suffered some embarrassment, but the country would have been spared the drawn out spectacle of the impeachment and its concomitant paralysis of our entire system of governance. To be sure, overzealous partisanship on the part of the Repuiblican-controlled Congress played no small part in the circus, but let's be generous and say that both parties behaved sub-optimally, and, again, President Clinton could have nipped the whole thing in the bud.
The cover-up was truly worse than the crime.
I thought of this today as I read a letter to the editor in today's paper, commenting on the latest revelations in the Penn State child abuse scandal. Last week, a report condemned Penn State officials, including the late legendary coach Joe Paterno, for their inaction in response to Jerry Sandusky's actions. Today's letter-writer asks, "Why do our political leaders, our business leaders and
the heads of so many other important organizations and institutions never learn
that the cover-up of a scandalous, illegal or immoral activity is almost always
worse for those involved than the actual events being covered up?"
I submit that, in tbis particular case, we can safely conclude that the cover-up was not worse than the crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment