WHAT! NO “WISE MEN?”

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