|
NEW YORK CITY
And Speaking for the Right…
CORRESPONDANCE
And
Speaking For the Right...
Long story short: A conservative writer is looking for a job, and she answers an Internet posting for a position with the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. For those who don’t know, this is the right-wing foundation run by gadfly David Horowitz, most noted for the ads that the organization (attempts) to run in college newspapers denouncing leftist academia and slave reparations.
Horowitz seems like an okay guy, so she feels good about sending a qualified resume and polite cover letter to Robert Locke, associate editor and columnist for the Horowitz website FrontPage Magazine.
But her response from Locke is unusually rude. In fact, it reads like this:
What is your position on immigration?
The conservative gal then responds with a perfectly intelligent answer. And Locke’s response, in total?
Poor answer. You have been removed from consideration for this position.
Best of luck to you elsewhere.
So the conservative gal posts the whole exchange on her website, and it just seems kind of funny. But then another conservative writer—in fact, this writer—asks if she minds if I also send in my resume, with the intention of berating a lowlife like Locke for being such an impolite jerk.
She thinks the idea is pretty funny, too. Sadly, this writer then sends his actual resume, which includes work for Playboy Enterprises. And we soon learn that some conservatives are truly as pathetic as, say, Michael Moore would have you believe.
As expected, the first response to my resume is Locke’s typically imperial, "What is your position on immigration?" I’m all set to reply by telling him to ask nicely. But before I can write that note, an additional e-mail appears from Locke:
I just got around to reading your CV. If you worked for a smut-peddler like Playboy, you are not a conservative. We believe in traditional Judeo-Christian morals and this is not compatible with them.
Best of luck to you elsewhere.
Now, that’s a little weird. To be honest, my first response is to confirm Locke’s actual e-mail address. It doesn’t seem possible for somebody to really be that lame. I’m thinking that I’ve been taken in by some hoaxer trying to smear the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. But everything checks out legit, so I dash off an e-mail back:
Thanks for your twisted opinion of my political beliefs. I’ll keep trying to undo the damage done by sad little stereotypes like yourself.
Lucky me, Locke responds, as tersely as ever:
It’s not a question of your beliefs. It’s a question of your actions.
Which prompts the following reply from me to Locke:
I think it has more to do with your feelings that sex is bad and women can’t be allowed to make decisions. But, again, we’ll just keep cleaning up the damage caused by all of you uptight prudes seeking to create a Nanny Nation.
Now, at this point, I’m a little ashamed of myself. Locke obviously doesn’t think that sex is bad, or that women can’t be allowed to make decisions. I’m arguing like a bad liberal. At least, that’s what I think, until I get the next response from Locke:
This is what America was for 200 years prior to the 1960’s, and you’re against it?
So, there’s good news for you leftists out there. There really are right-wingers who are proud to embrace the notion that women should just shut the hell up. Suddenly, I understand why that conservative gal was dismissed so quickly.
It’s hard to reply to someone as repulsive as Locke, but I have to try:
Yes, I’m against your views that sex is bad and women can’t make their own decisions. Thanks for confirming your beliefs, though. (I’d rather not know about your actions.) Anyway, you might want to keep in mind that what makes America (and a political website) great is an appreciation of diverse views. That’s why I’m proud to be a conservative instead of a leftist. I have no idea what you are, but congratulations on conning Horowitz.
In the tradition of conservative males who always have to remind us that they’re 100 percent red-blooded men, Locke responds:
My view is not that sex is bad. It is that it is a good that must not be degraded.
Diverse views belong in the marketplace of ideas as a whole, not in one magazine with a definite point of view.
Locke, however, still seems pretty comfortable with the notion that women shouldn’t have opinions. So I dash off another clever reply:
So you’re against anything besides the missionary position? And what about women making their own decisions outside of bed? Here’s another shocking idea of mine that contradicts a value America didn’t always stand for: Blacks should have the right to vote.
Look, you don’t need to reply. You’ve already hung yourself out to dry. Still, try to take away one useful lesson from this: Conservative thought is diverse. A publication of any ideology is useless if it embraces "a definite point of view." Good luck in becoming the Howell Raines of the Right. To most conservatives, though, you’ll remain a petty douchebag.
At this point, you’d think Locke would at least concede that we’re both behind the abolition of Jim Crow. But, perhaps inspired by the recent grandstanding of Trent Lott, this is my most recent reply from Locke:
My view is what all Americans, left and right, believed for 200 years. Your view is just post-60’s crap.
"A petty douchebag"? Fine. But one with a job as editor, while you are unemployed.
Nice final petty touch about being employed. Too bad I forgot to mention that my resume was only sent in as a goof. A conservative like Locke, however, probably just assumes that anyone who disagrees with him is poor.
