Animal House ...and Senate.

Critters are special. I’ve always loved them even when they didn’t love me. When I was a toddler, a cranky old dog bit me under both eyes. Sixty-three years later the scars remain, but I apparently wasn’t traumatized by the incident because I continued to approach unfamiliar dogs while my mother watched with horror. I have always believed that an animal will react in a manner appropriate to the attitude of the human who approaches it. Today’s column is a discussion about animals of a different sort…political animals.


Because most of us are familiar with the stereotypical attributes of various animals, I have created a taxonomy of political types with members of the animal kingdom as identifiers. The five classifications are: Weasels, wolves, vultures, chickens and tigers.

Weasels are easy. They sneak around and try to ingratiate themselves with whomever seems dominate. They’ll drop you like a hot poker if they perceive that someone else offers them a greater reward. Weasels are 100 per cent self-serving opportunists and are unreliable.

Wolves are opportunists also, but are much more aggressive and assertive than weasels. They lust for power and the acclaim that accompanies it. A wolf will use whatever means available to achieve his/her objective. Wolves are especially dangerous when cooperating with other wolves… a pack of wolves is deadly.

Vultures hover above the fray. They enjoy watching the weasels’ attempts to manipulate and relish the spectacle of the wolves destroying their prey. The vultures swoop on the carrion after the wolves have finished their task and consume their fill from the bits and pieces that remain. Vultures are always late to the cause because they circle overhead while waiting for a winner to prevail, then they get on board and enjoy the left-over fruits of victory.

Chickens cannot take stands because metaphorically speaking, they have no spines. Chickens are notoriously cowardly and will not commit to any position that may cause someone to oppose them. Chickens, therefore, prefer the vague and avoid the specific.

Unfortunately there are not enough tigers in Congress for us to design a true definition of them. They are so rare that the Dodo bird is much more common in the halls of the U.S. Capitol than is the tiger. In my imagination the tiger would be a fierce defender of the republic as it was designed. In addition, the tiger would be unstoppably aggressive when he/she detected a threat to freedom. The wolves would be wary. The weasels would remain in hiding. The vultures would never land, and the chickens would become McNuggets if the tigers were on the prowl.

I love tigers. Wish we had some.

Comment or email:  cnpearl@woh.rr.com