THE BIRD FEEDER TEST

In fairy tales, the young man trying to win the hand of the king’s daughter must perform some difficult feat, like killing a fire-breathing dragon, before he can marry the princess and become the heir to the throne. 

Shouldn’t we ask our political candidates to show us what they can do; shouldn’t they have to pass some test before they are allowed to run for office?  After all, being able to spend campaign money handed over by corporate donors hardly demonstrates one’s proficiency at governing, nor does being part of the government a specified number of years.  Well, of course I know that no test would give us the answers we need and besides, testing wouldn’t be democratic, but what if >>>

What if each candidate was required to perform some simple task, like putting up a bird feeder, keeping it filled with seed, and doing it all so the squirrels did not get the seed?  We’d watch them at their tasks like we watch the characters on reality TV.  We’d watch them go the big box store, and see what type of bird feeder equipment they select, or we’d watch as they made a homemade bird feeder.  We’d learn whether they are dedicated enough and patient enough to feed the birds every day, whether they are smart enough to be able to outwit the squirrels.  We’d give them only so much money and see if they could live within a budget.

We’d take off points if a candidate buys a plastic bird feeder and the squirrels gnaw big holes in the feeder.  We’d take off points if the squirrels are able to climb onto the feeder and empty it more than once a day.  Extra points off if he allows the seeds that tumble down onto the ground to stay there and attract mice.  Extra points off if the mice population starts to attract snakes.  He’s out of the running if any snakes or mice come into the house.  If the raccoons knock down the bird feeder and start batting it around the yard to get out the seed, it’s an automatic F.  He’s disqualified if deer come and nibble at the seed and leave deer ticks all over the yard.

If the candidate starts shooting at the squirrels with a gun to kill them, he’s not the right kind of candidate for us.  We need someone who can manage to accomplish things without resorting to violence. 

What if the candidate decides he needs more bird seed and decides to “liberate” some seed from the neighbor’s bird feeder?  What if he goes over to the neighbor’s yard and starts shooting the neighbor’s squirrels, shooting the birds, mice, raccoons, and deer and anything else that is trying to get at the neighbor’s bird seed?  What if he wrecks the neighbor’s yard?  What if he then insists he will not leave the neighbor’s yard until he has gathered up every last bit of bird seed over there?  Maybe some imperialist tendencies?

Now I’ve been saying, “he” throughout my musings here, but of course, a candidate could be “she” just as well. 

I think I’d be impressed by a candidate who could figure out a way to thwart the squirrels, maybe by putting the bird feeder up on a squirrel-proof metal pole.  He’d get points for having it close enough to trees so the birds could fly there to rest and feel secure, and yet far enough from trees so the squirrels couldn’t jump from the trees to the feeder.  High enough so passing deer couldn’t get seed and passing cats couldn’t get at the birds.  With a base that could be swept with a broom. 

He’d get even more points by doing it all in an ecologically sound way (with organic bird seed, for example), with calm, thoughtful planning.  I’d be even more impressed if he also found a way for all the wild creatures to share the yard and live together in peaceful harmony.

Life hands us plenty of unanticipated happenings, consequences, and surprises each time we start a project, each time we try to accomplish anything.  Somehow we need to know not just if a candidate can accomplish a particular task such as installing a bird feeder – that part is relatively easy; we also need to know how he will handle all the unanticipated happenings (like mice and snakes materializing under the bird feeder), and if he is smart, analytical, flexible, carefully deliberative, and capable of crafting a strategy that is responsive, fits the moment, and will work in the long-term.

It would be fun to watch the squirrelly misadventures of the candidates on reality TV.  Better there than on the nightly news after they get elected.

Look before you leap.

Full-size image

I’d like to get the current candidates into some sort of Survivor setting where we’d quickly learn if they could in fact work cooperatively together to accomplish some positive result.  What little I saw of Survivor was a disappointment (before I stopped watching programmed TV many years ago).  None of the show’s contestants moved beyond the boundaries inherent in the show and they did little but form “alliances” and generate sound bites.  We need to know if our candidates could do better than that, taking initiative, moving beyond boundaries, demonstrating an ability to overcome gridlock in DC. 

In Survivor, the outcome is never in question – one person is left.  A real surprise ending would be if the contestants banded together, refused to compete, and persuaded the show’s executives to distribute the prize money equally among all the contestants.  (Do we ever step outside the script for our own lives?)

-2008-

Slide show, music, and folders on my main page.

X Keywords:   candidates for election MSN Windows Live Spaces X