By Edwin Cooney
In response to my recent commentary on “common sense,” one of my readers sent me the following:
“Common sense tells me that it’s almost time to wish you holiday greetings. But there will be no nativity scene at the capitol. They can’t find three wise men in Washington D.C.”
I’m incredulous over that news, aren’t you? If there aren’t three wise men in the capital of the freest, richest, most vital nation on earth, what does that say about our past? What does it portend for our future? Might there be two or perhaps even one wise man in Washington, D.C.? Maybe he lives in the Maryland or Virginia suburbs of the capital. Of course, we can’t insist that he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! If we did, we’d have to suggest that a social minority Democrat could be wise! Okay, if you insist, I’ll very reluctantly scratch that one -- after all, I’ve never claimed to be wise myself! Oh, well! Let’s see now! Hmmm! Maybe Chief Justice John G. Roberts could be considered a wise man. Hmmm! Nah! A truly wise man could hardly have been born in Buffalo, New York! I must add, however, that the wisest lady I ever knew was born in Buffalo. But we’re looking for wise men, aren’t we? If the President and the Chief Justice of the United States must be ruled out, who else is there?
Of course, wise men of biblical days advised absolute rulers. If things went well enough for those rulers, the designated wise men remained wise men. Otherwise, having been demoted to a rank lower than manhood itself, they probably disappeared. Thus, we have the inevitable question: what makes a man wise? That question brings up still another question: do men have a monopoly over women on wisdom?
Then there’s the daunting question: What exactly is wisdom? Owls are supposed to be wise. Foxes are wise, in a sly and “foxy” way, of course! Successful politicians are supposedly clever, manipulative and egotistic. As for lawyers, Republican lawyers are of course necessary beings while Democratic lawyers are grasping shysters lacking the least pretences to wisdom.
So, who’s wise and what is wisdom? Now, I’d be glad to define wisdom for you, but the question is whether or not you’d be wise enough to endorse my definition. After all, much wisdom is described in negative terms such as “the batter was wise not to swing at that pitch!” “Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread!” Wise men are prudent! The wise among us are more judicious than aggressive or creative! Finally, the wise ones, much of the time, are required to wear beards, aren’t they?
In the first fifty years of our federal republic (1789 - 1839), Washington, the two Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Jackson, a total of seven men, were largely regarded as wise men. In the second fifty years (1840 through 1890), Senators Clay, Webster, Calhoun and Presidents Lincoln and Grant, a total of five men, were regarded as wise. (Note that Clay, Webster and Calhoun helped bring about the Civil War, but they were seen as wise men nonetheless.) In the third fifty year period (1891 - 1941) Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes were among the wise of the land. The fourth fifty years (1942 to 1992), Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan and Chief Justice Earl Warren, a total of four men, were among the wise of that era. In the fifth fifty year period, the years since 1993, perhaps the wisest man of this generation so far is Colin Powell a man who decided in 1996 not to run for president.
As I perceive the political and socio/religious American scene in late 2011, cynicism appears much more prevalent than wisdom. What scares me is that we may be too cynical to even recognize wisdom.
Back in the 1950s, the late great broadcaster and newsman Edward R. Murrow along with his producer Fred W. Friendly put together a series of broadcasts in which prominent Americans such as Helen Keller, Helen Hayes, and Bernard Baruch described their fundamental beliefs. This series of broadcasts was called appropriately enough “This I Believe.” These personal philosophies were published in book form and became a bestseller.
Perhaps then, the beginning of wisdom is the willingness to believe in someone or some principle that enhances rather than inhibits the “better angels of our nature.” If that’s the beginning of wisdom, then there must be a touch of wisdom in most of us. Whether there’s a sufficient amount of wisdom in any of us to fully be considered “wise” is another question!
So, then, there are no wise men in Washington! Scary as that may be, the question is: are we wise enough to heed even one wise man -- let alone three of them? If there were three wise men, which one of them would we heed: the wise man of riches, the wise man of natural abundants, or the wise man of love? What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, December 19, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
“AND THE WINNER IS…”
By Edwin Cooney
One of the hardest emotional and intellectual exercises for anyone to endure who supports an incumbent president is to listen to a political debate among the candidates of the opposing party. Difficult as it is, such an exercise can be fascinating and instructive.
It’s instructive, because it gives you an insight into the personalities and values of their candidates. It’s fascinating, because you learn how they evaluate the origin, nature and solvability of domestic and international problems.
Additionally, during the most recent GOP debate at Constitution Hall, there were two issues regarding our national security that were especially enthralling. The first had to do with the “war on terror.” The second one had to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
The “war on terror” question concerned civil liberties. Specifically, what should be our reaction in response to anyone, such as the 2009 Detroit “Christmas bomber,” whose mission was clearly an act of terror? Should he have been given his Miranda Rights and tried as a criminal (as was the case) or should he, a foreigner and suspected terrorist, have been tried by the military? Congresswoman Bachmann insisted that President Obama has turned our national security over to the Civil Liberties Union rather than to a responsible agency such as the CIA!
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted that there’s a clear difference between a criminal act and an act of war. In a criminal act, asserted Gingrich, the government should be on the defensive to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, former Speaker Gingrich insisted that a terrorist act, being an act of war, should enable the government to utilize legal tools beyond the norm such as censure, seizure and interrogation. He and most of the other candidates cited President Lincoln’s Civil War measures to support this conclusion.
The exception was (you guessed it) Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, who is forever concerned about civil liberties, insisted that much of the problem has to do with our own carelessness with words and concepts. He pointed out, as I have since 2006, that we’re not engaged in a “war on terror,” that terror is a tactic or a mere element of conflict or war. He went on to insist that as a member of Congress, he had never voted for any declaration of war on Islam or on any other country. Vigorous and persuasive as his arguments were that we could alleviate terror by minding our own business, they were generally brushed aside by most of his political opponents. Thus, as Speaker Gingrich pointed out, terror is going to be with us for the rest of our lives. The public is left with the clear understanding that the Republican Party is the only party that is sufficiently interested and therefore able to maintain the security and safety of the American people. What else can one reasonably expect to glean (I suppose) from a Republican debate?
As for the issue of illegal immigration, there were a number of significant points brought out by the candidates. Governor Perry insisted that the number one national security priority is securing the Mexican border. Specifically, the governor promised that within twelve months of his inauguration, our border with Mexico would be secure. Next Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Governor Romney, and Speaker Gingrich engaged in a debate over the phrases “legal immigration” and “amnesty” and whether tolerance for illegal immigrants who have been here for 20 or 25 years should prevail. My personal regard went up several degrees for Newt Gingrich who has seldom given me a chance to even respect him, let alone love him. However, on this occasion, he insisted that the GOP could hardly be the party of the family if it didn’t find some way of allowing “illegal immigrant” Mexican families with 25 years of roots and traditions to remain in the United States. Newt Gingrich’s assertion was, for me, the moral high point of the entire debate.
When asked to name the dangers to America which have been getting less attention than they should, the candidates covered both the globe and the entire emotional spectrum. Former Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Perry are worried about socialism and Hezbollah in Latin America. Congressman Paul worries that we’ll continue to become involved in conflicts “that are none of our business.” Herman Cain and Mr. Santorum worry about China and cyber warfare. (Santorum also worries about the 25,000 abortions in China every day.) Speaker Gingrich worries about a possible electromagnetic pulse attack that could entirely disable the United States. Congresswoman Bachmann agrees with all her colleagues except Ron Paul, her congressional peer. Finally, Governor Jon Huntsman worries about a dying and desperate China and about jobs in America.
As for the debate, the issues that were raised were genuine enough. The debate was exceedingly partisan -- everyone knows America didn’t face critical issues before President Obama was elected! As for the candidates, I liked Gingrich, Huntsman, and Romney in that order!
And the winner was – oh, my! It can’t be true! I can’t believe it: “…fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
One of the hardest emotional and intellectual exercises for anyone to endure who supports an incumbent president is to listen to a political debate among the candidates of the opposing party. Difficult as it is, such an exercise can be fascinating and instructive.
It’s instructive, because it gives you an insight into the personalities and values of their candidates. It’s fascinating, because you learn how they evaluate the origin, nature and solvability of domestic and international problems.
Additionally, during the most recent GOP debate at Constitution Hall, there were two issues regarding our national security that were especially enthralling. The first had to do with the “war on terror.” The second one had to do with the issue of illegal immigration.
The “war on terror” question concerned civil liberties. Specifically, what should be our reaction in response to anyone, such as the 2009 Detroit “Christmas bomber,” whose mission was clearly an act of terror? Should he have been given his Miranda Rights and tried as a criminal (as was the case) or should he, a foreigner and suspected terrorist, have been tried by the military? Congresswoman Bachmann insisted that President Obama has turned our national security over to the Civil Liberties Union rather than to a responsible agency such as the CIA!
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted that there’s a clear difference between a criminal act and an act of war. In a criminal act, asserted Gingrich, the government should be on the defensive to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, former Speaker Gingrich insisted that a terrorist act, being an act of war, should enable the government to utilize legal tools beyond the norm such as censure, seizure and interrogation. He and most of the other candidates cited President Lincoln’s Civil War measures to support this conclusion.
The exception was (you guessed it) Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, who is forever concerned about civil liberties, insisted that much of the problem has to do with our own carelessness with words and concepts. He pointed out, as I have since 2006, that we’re not engaged in a “war on terror,” that terror is a tactic or a mere element of conflict or war. He went on to insist that as a member of Congress, he had never voted for any declaration of war on Islam or on any other country. Vigorous and persuasive as his arguments were that we could alleviate terror by minding our own business, they were generally brushed aside by most of his political opponents. Thus, as Speaker Gingrich pointed out, terror is going to be with us for the rest of our lives. The public is left with the clear understanding that the Republican Party is the only party that is sufficiently interested and therefore able to maintain the security and safety of the American people. What else can one reasonably expect to glean (I suppose) from a Republican debate?
As for the issue of illegal immigration, there were a number of significant points brought out by the candidates. Governor Perry insisted that the number one national security priority is securing the Mexican border. Specifically, the governor promised that within twelve months of his inauguration, our border with Mexico would be secure. Next Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Governor Romney, and Speaker Gingrich engaged in a debate over the phrases “legal immigration” and “amnesty” and whether tolerance for illegal immigrants who have been here for 20 or 25 years should prevail. My personal regard went up several degrees for Newt Gingrich who has seldom given me a chance to even respect him, let alone love him. However, on this occasion, he insisted that the GOP could hardly be the party of the family if it didn’t find some way of allowing “illegal immigrant” Mexican families with 25 years of roots and traditions to remain in the United States. Newt Gingrich’s assertion was, for me, the moral high point of the entire debate.
When asked to name the dangers to America which have been getting less attention than they should, the candidates covered both the globe and the entire emotional spectrum. Former Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Perry are worried about socialism and Hezbollah in Latin America. Congressman Paul worries that we’ll continue to become involved in conflicts “that are none of our business.” Herman Cain and Mr. Santorum worry about China and cyber warfare. (Santorum also worries about the 25,000 abortions in China every day.) Speaker Gingrich worries about a possible electromagnetic pulse attack that could entirely disable the United States. Congresswoman Bachmann agrees with all her colleagues except Ron Paul, her congressional peer. Finally, Governor Jon Huntsman worries about a dying and desperate China and about jobs in America.
As for the debate, the issues that were raised were genuine enough. The debate was exceedingly partisan -- everyone knows America didn’t face critical issues before President Obama was elected! As for the candidates, I liked Gingrich, Huntsman, and Romney in that order!
And the winner was – oh, my! It can’t be true! I can’t believe it: “…fear itself!”
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)