I read an interesting article today, written by a very interesting author, that raised the title question. It was a piece of political commentary, so
read it, or not, as you will, but it made me think. Nephi said that learning and wisdom were not necessarily synonymous, and the former without the latter was a very dangerous thing, especially to the learned one who had no wisdom, but that learning was a good thing when the one who had it was not so full of himself that he would no longer listen to anything beyond his own thoughts.
Wisdom can be learned in academia. The classical liberal education was designed just for that. A major portion of it was a study of Western and classical philosophers combined with history so the student could see what brought about success and what brought about failure on the world stage. There is wisdom in philosophies that were developed and tested over the course of many centuries, even if they were sometimes lacking in truth.
Modern academia, in the main, seems to have thrown all of the wisdom of the ages out in the belief that anything older than memory is at least suspect if not actually evil, at least to the extent that evil is acknowledged at all. Modern philosophies tend to be developed, not by looking into the past and considering the measured results of actual decisions by real people, but by projecting the wishes of the present into the an imaginary future. For the present learned, it has the advantage that it cannot be tested or refuted, because the past is dead and beyond consideration. If some deem the philosophy flawed because it has failed so far, they just haven't given it enough time. There are still devout communists who believe that the dialectic will yet come true in just a few more years.
I think this is one reason that there is such a disconnect between the coasts and fly-over country. Wisdom can be learned from the right kind of academics, but it is far more easily learned from experience. People who are not insulated from the consequences of decisions learn quickly what works and what doesn't, even without a background in classical history. They develop a practical philosophy for living that would be easily recognized, if it were articulated, or could be articulated, by any of the old philosophers, who might quibble over details, but not broad strokes.
Too many people in academia and other "disciplines" only learn to think right and to think forward and so continuously stumble over obstacles that would easily be visible if lighted by the experience of the past, or even the present.
William Buckley's statement that he would rather be governed by the first 500 people in the Boston phonebook than the faculty of Harvard carried a lot of truth in it. The latter class of people could do considerable damage, if only because they would be thoroughly convinced of their own rightness and righteousness in every decision, and because academia today is so monolithic in its culture that there would be no dissenting voices to question the direction of march. They would march right off a cliff, all the while proclaiming that once they reached the bottom, they would find the promised land. The former, at least, would argue about the direction of march, and those that lost would would be looking for problems, so they could warn the others that the cliff was getting close and be heard.
Mosiah held the voice of the people is fairly high regard. He undoubtedly knew that they wouldn't get everything right and that it would be a messy process, but that it was uncommon for the voice of the people to choose iniquity. In modern terms, people who are not thoroughly convinced of their own infallibility and superior learning will muddle through. They may move slowly and in fits and starts, sometimes this way and sometimes that way, but on average they move in the right direction.
Government does need specialists for its operations. Agencies are not easily run by those inexperienced with large organizations. It is also good for those that govern to be advised by those learned in the areas of decisions that must be made. The decision makers, though, need wisdom more than learning and there doesn't seem to be nearly enough of that. Part of the problem is that the wise tend to not stick their nose into other peoples business which means that they are not attracted in great numbers to the business of government. It is difficult to come out of government with your honor, much less your reputation, wholly intact.
