If James Dobson ruled the ex-gay movement with an iron fist, and if the opening scene of The Devil Wears Prada were to peek inside a political empire instead of a fashion magazine, then what might Dobson’s morning arrival at Focus on the Family look like?
[Elevator doors open onto the executive floor. James Dobson dons his glasses, steps from the elevator, and barks orders at his female personal assistant, who takes notes.]
Tell Alan I’m not going to approve that young man that he sent me for the youth layout. I asked for sexy, serious, and ripped; he sent me chaste, smiling and bleached. And RSVP yes to Peter LaBarbera’s party, I want the driver to drop me off at 9:30 and pick me up at 9:45, sharp.
[Dobson rounds a corner of the corridor to his office, his assistant stumbling behind in high heels and a long skirt.]Then call Warren at Grove City and tell him no, for the 40th time, no, I don’t want “sexual identity guidelines,” I want “the road to godly masculinity through baseball.” Then call Newt’s ex-wife and remind her to stay out of the limelight. Then call Newt’s ex-ex-wife. Ask her to please be “out of the country” before Thompson’s next gig with that show that Russert hosts.
[Passing through his office foyer, Dobson tosses his jacket on an assistant’s desk.]Also, tell Nicolosi I saw all the videos that he sent for that panel presentation on divorced ex-gays and their new girlfriends, and they’re all so deeply unconvincing. Is it impossible to find a virile, amorous, eligible ex-gay divorcee? Am I reaching for the stars here? Not really.
[Dobson enters his inner office.]Also I need to see all the things that Randy has pulled for Michael Glatze’s second try at Love Won Out. I wonder if he’s lost that ’70s moustache yet.
[Dobson sees a fawning female visitor, Estella.]Who is that?
Hat tip: Miranda Priestly
Mike,
You began posting with substantially greater frequency a couple months ago, and it’s beginning to trouble me. While this is an amusing post — appropriate for a private blog — I hardly think that it’s consistent with the nature of Ex-Gay Watch.
Furthermore, whenever you do post on a matter of importance, you’ve been using a vocabulary of “loaded words” and phases that clearly communicate a disdain for the subjects-at-hand, typically conservative Christians.
While I agree with you on a variety of issues, your writing style and choice of topics tends to undermine the credibility of this site, which would otherwise be an investigative site of minimal bias.
I’m curious whether my observations are misplaced, or whether other readers of the site might concur. I’d be happy to provide concrete examples/evidence, upon request, though it might take a day or two to compile.
Best regards,
James
I’ll let Mike respond as well, but I just for the record, we used to do more open forum posts and a lot of times these are light hearted, as I think this one is. It gives the readers a chance to comment in a less structured thread without the confines of a topic. I personally see nothing wrong with having both levity and serious investigation and commentary – as long as they are clearly delineated. In this case, I certainly think they are.
Strangely enough, Dobson is known to micromanage, controlling every aspect of his image to the world. Even his seemingly impromptu radio moments are planned to appear this way. So there is actually more truth here than one might expect 😉
Since this sounds like it will involve a lot of personal critique and examples, etc, perhaps you should email Mike directly?
It gave me a chuckle. Thanks, Mike.
I worked as personal assistant to a high-powered executive once. I lasted a whopping 13 months before begging to be sent to Facilities Management. Working with broken equipment, spills, idiots, burned out bulbs was so much less stressful!
I don’t need to wonder if there’s some veracity to this scenario. There is!
Phil,
Thanks for the compliment — though at least one joke is already outdated, since “Newt” withdrew today from the 2008 U.S. presidential race.
James,
I’ve been filling in lately, since the other writers have been less available in recent weeks. I turned over editorship of this site to David Roberts about a year ago and my goal has been to write as little as possible for XGW — in fact, I already have two other online projects in the works that I would prefer to focus on.
I do not feel disdain for “conservative Christians” as a class, but in my opinion your label is too broad. It lumps together people who possess a humble appreciation for Christian traditions, with egotists who have discarded tradition, history, and context in favor of their own selective, sinful, and warlike re-reading of the Bible. The latter category are progressively — denomination by denomination — rendering the church as a whole uninhabitable for people (both liberal and conservative) who cherish the values of peace, brotherhood, community, charity, compassion, self-sacrifice, redemption, dialogue, and learning.
I think that, contextually, it should be clear from the whole of this site, why I hold people like James Dobson in low regard, and for the sake of time and brevity, I would prefer to avoid re-explaining myself. If it seems sometimes that I have lost patience with the humble Christians for sometimes enabling theocratic egotists and permitting other Christians to be increasingly ostracized, you may be right. I welcome criticism of my writing, and the more specifics that are provided, the better.
As for the levity of this post, David explained that. We purposely make Open Forum posts either off-topic or unserious so that people can feel free to talk about anything.
Your comment raises a great opportunity for fans of XGW to suggest how the site could improve or change with the times. But I believe everyone should keep in mind that any improvements require effort, and effort requires human labor — that is, volunteers.
Assistant: Uh..noboby, I was preinterviewing her…but she’s hopeless…
Good one, Regan 🙂
Revolving all-clear trophy case pedestal in front lobby containing bronzed Jesse Helms’ wheelchair.
[Dobson adjusts his shirt cuffs, looks down admiringly at his black leather shoes]
A present from Peter. Softest leather I’ve ever felt – didn’t even have to break them in. He may be incompetent, but he sure knows his leather!
Where is my coffee? It’s morning, I’ve entered the office and my coffee is not here.
[Junior assistant rushes in with a large black mug of steaming coffee, Dunkin’ Donuts blend]
Here you are sir, I’m so sorry.
[Dobson glances at some papers left neatly on his desk]
Has anyone found Jones and Yarhouse? This study needs help but quick. Where are they?
[Assistant]
We found Jones. He is hold up at his home, phone off the hook, watching reruns of Designing Women while eating French Vanilla by the half gallon – it’s very sad, sir. We’ve been unable to locate Yarhouse, but think he is headed for Grove City.
[Dobson]
Just great. I told Alan this would happen. Now it will be up to us to put some lipstick on this pig. Call Haley, he knows what to say, 100% change, yada yada. We never should have let him transfer departments.
[Dobson, holding up one particular memo]
What’s this? How many times do I have to tell Melissa we are not going to make Fridays “Kilt Day”? Don’t let these reach my desk again. That woman worries me. Does my hair look red to you? Nevermind…
Mike, David, Emproph, and Regan you should get into screen-writing. It would be a shriek!
Of course, you’d have to change the names to protect the less-than-innocent.
‘and effort requires human labor – that is, volunteers’… well Mike, I have thoughts of volunteering my human labor in terms of Asian Pacific content for XGW… but observing the way and distinguished style of writing you guys have… I would be better off just sitting back, and watch the next installment of the saga, ‘The Dobson Wears Prada II: Bringing Up Ex-Gays’, lol…. : )
I love humor!… It can’t be serious all the time ^^, no matter how serious someone is, if you have humor in you, it only but makes you look more human. Just as long as you dont become a clown. Then it would be less convincing and harder to distinguish between the serious phrases and the humoristic ones.
Very funny, Mike. I shared this with the staff this morning. The funniest part of this is thinking of Dr. Dobson in Prada.
FYI – Yarhouse arrived this morning after we rolled out the sidewalks here in Grove City. I am taking him on a tour of GC later; should take a couple of minutes. Might take longer if we see any people.
Man on ladder next to sign at city limits of Grove City, changing the “8” to a “9”.
“Kilt Day”
My coffee almost squirted out of my nose.
::: drat ::: further proof that I might not be genetically predisposed toward homosexuality about to be revealed :::
What the *#)! is a “prada” anyway? Are those the fish things with fangs that can skeletonize a cow in less than three minutes? And why are you all making Dobson out to be such a !#$*!?
I think the guy is hilarious. You should see him at the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Monopoly Tournament. He’s a hoot…makes great queso too.
*#)! = heck
!#$*! = meany
Hi, Randy,
Dr. Dobson headlined Saturday’s meeting of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (otherwise known as the Arlington Group/Council for National Policy) where it was decided that much of the Christian Right might bail from the GOP in 2008. How do you feel about that? Please feel free to share.
How are the Michael Glatze portfolio and youth layout going?
Mike, I answered your question on my blog.
Randy, my grandmother always said he was a “hoot n’a holler”…never was sure what she meant. Now that you mentioned his queso I understand. Little spicy for my taste…had me hollerin’ all the way to the kitchen last time I had it.
**for those who don’t know, rumor has it that Dobson and my grandfather were in college together and actually sang in a quartet for a time. I’m still trying to verify…lol.
I was just kidding about the Monopoly tournament. All we really do is watch old Dallas reruns for inspiration.
That JR Ewing … what a rascal!
Randy,
I know that the Party’s lessening obsession with theocracy (or what you would call “Biblical directives of submission, loyalty and dissent where appropriate”) has caused so many social conservatives concern.
Ironically, the rest of the Party (ya know, those of us who were Republicans when the social conservatives were Southern Democrats) is also finally becoming disillusioned with the Party. But for the opposite reasons.
The Party put your Presidential choice – oh a good Godly gay-marriage fighter – in charge and sent us off to a war that no one is sure why we are there. We allowed the God Warriors to put the interests of mega-billion-dollar international corporations ahead of the businesses that employ our own citizens. We’ve let the Christians Conservatives flaunt immigration efforts (even the most feeble and non-controversial efforts to maintain a national identity and protect borders) so that they could give agricultural super-giants even more control over the food we eat. We screwed the small businesses and the workers and the patriotic and the farmers and pretty much anyone else. But it’s OK because it’s all blessed by the mega-churches and the Men Of God.
And as a Christian and a Republican, what you have done to both my party and my faith is disgusting and vile. And it is no secret that this is why both have lost the respect of everyone else. And Dobson – along with the rest of the culture warriors – is to blame.
In that bastion of Liberal Media Bias, Auto Racing Daily, they have an article about how long-term Republicans are annoyed that we sold out our principles of freedom to support your social agenda and in the process we lost our support for business and economic prosperity.
You guys had your chance, Randy. America gave the religious right a chance to prove that what they had to offer was better. And instead of decency, humility, moral decisions, and compassion, all you guys had to offer was arrogance, corruption, and cruelty to others.
Well, it will be a long long time before Christians are ever trusted again. Thanks, Randy. You did your part.
Wow, personal assignment of ownership. Who knew I had such power?
I don’t know that “America” gave the “religious right” a chance and they failed, in my lifetime (especially when I identified as gay), Christians have never been trusted. I didn’t trust them till well after I became one.
The religious right is a part of America who has every right to assert their freedoms and opinions as you and the HRC. This whole idea of creating a theocracy is ridiculous hyperbole.
You live in a much safer, much more tolerant and free gay community than I ever did 15 years ago…and it wasn’t too bad back then.
I’m not and never have been the monster you make me out to be.
Randy,
Careful how you put words in my mouth. I do not think you are a monster.
Rather, I think that you arrogantly assume that your religious faith trumps that of everyone around you. And I think that you value “a godly nation” over the freedom of individuals to either turn to or away from God.
I believe, based on your previous statements and your own personal political activism that if you were able to construct the nation in such a way as to ensure that “biblical principles” were enshrined and enforced that you would do so, even if that way were by means of a dictator. Given the choice between religious and economic freedoms and having a state that was in full compliance with your beliefs about behavior, I am fully convinced that you would choose “godly laws” over economic and religious self-determination any day.
Please feel free to correct me.
As to the country not giving the religious right a chance, you are mistaken. George W. Bush was not the selection of the libertarian Republicans. Nor was he the choice of liberal Christians. He was the annointed selection of the fundamentalist christian “base” of value voters and he ran an anti-gay campaign designed by Karl Rove to get out the anti-gay vote. This is hardly a secret.
And it is also true that Bush’s waning and nearly non-existant support is found almost exclusively from those who care about very little but abortion and gay marriage. He’s your man, Randy.
And he’s been a miserable failure.
I don’t say that in a partisan sense but from the perspective of someone who has spent the greater part of his adult life paying attention to politics and the accomplishments and failures of Presidents. He didn’t fail because I disagree with him – he failed because all he had to offer was stubborness.
The same unwillingness to budge that endeared him to those who seek to keep an authoritarian attitude about social freedoms is also what caused his implosion on the national stage. An unwillingness to consider that others just might have some merit to their position.
And his stick-to-my-guns no matter what attitude is the exact same one that social conservatives cling to in the face of ever growing evidence that their claims about gay people are blatantly unsubstantiated. The arrogant “I’m right and I’ll force you to do it my way” approach is common in both social conservative politics and social conservative religion. Whether it’s Dobson or Bush or any of the other theocrats, it all comes from the same paternalistic arrogant stubborness.
So yes, Randy, we all gave your side a try.
Now I want my party back.
Randy says:
Yes you do Randy. You and the RR have every right to express your opinions and have your freedoms but not at the expense of demeaning and hindering the rights of those that you find “less than” all by your interpretation of the Bible. The RR has done nothing but pit people against one another claiming they have the “sole truth” while others that may have a different interpretation of scripture is of the Devil. And yes, there are some of those that are on the far right that believe in Dominionism and wish to substitute the Constitution with Old Testament Law. One of those is Roy Moore former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Remember the Ten Commandments idol worshiping controversy? He has said as many others on the right have said that this nation needs to return to biblical law. But whose interpretation of biblical law? I am not saying that you are personally a Dominionist, Randy, but there are some in your camp that would like to see it come to pass.
Jim Burroway had reported on his site what your boss Alan Chambers had said from the Family Impact Summit:
“We have to stand up against an evil agenda. It is an evil agenda and it will take anyone captive that is willing, or that is standing idly by,” Alan Chambers said as he neared the conclusion of his talk.
That “evil agenda” you guys talk about all the time is our basic civil rights. Since when did our basic civil rights become an evil agenda? We seek the same rights everyone is entitled to including job protection, marriage to the one we love, visitation rights in the hospital, and that is just to name a few. Christ himself would be appalled at your so called Christian attitude. I find no love involved unless its directed to those that believe in the same ideology as you do.
Randy,
It was never my impression that the Religious Right ever made a secret of their desire to establish a theocracy.
… and this is why I don’t comment here. Thanks for the reminder.
And just for the record. I would not have a theocratic rule. I would have the democracy we have because it allows people to choose or deny Christ fully informed and only responsible for themselves as they stand before God. That is how God would have it….He doesn’t want forced salvation because that isn’t His way. He wants us to honestly choose Him.
… ok, it has been fun … well until I was blamed for the theocratic rule and failure of the United States… see ya’.
Oh, brother.
Randy said:
This theme that gays are better off now than they ever were is also a common theme of Alan Chambers. It is often tossed out there as some sort of defense of themselves. Failure to win their fights to declare gay people criminals (Goodridge v. Texas- consensual sodomy laws), failure to enshrine discrimination against gays in the Constitution (so far), failure to prohibit gays from marrying in Massachussett (and perhaps some other states soon), and failure to deny children the opportunity to be adopted solely because the potential adopting parent(s) is/are gay (in most states) doesn’t get them off the hook for trying to impose all those injustices.
Despite their failures, they and their allies have still managed to do much harm, and it seems bizarre to me that they would not expect to be taken to task by their victims: gay American citizens who are brave enough to live their lives openly.
And just for the record. I would not have a theocratic rule. I would have the democracy we have because it allows people to choose or deny Christ fully informed and only responsible for themselves as they stand before God.
Excellent. Glad to hear it.
Are you then on record, Randy, as saying that you would choose democracy over biblical principles? Because none of your political efforts to date have demonstrated this.
Timothy:
I have a great deal of respect for you. You are a giant in my book. I also understand your frustration at watching the political party you are vested in being hijacked by the extremists who have chosen to align themselves with the party. Until I left the Republican Party several years ago (for some of these very reasons…I’m now a registered Independent), I had some of the most solid credentials one could have having been very active since high school. I’m from one of those families where politics ranked right up there with our faith and football. Said all that to say, I understand your frustration.
I too have been following Randy’s political statements and activism for a while. Probably not as long as you, but for a while. My personal opinion is that more often than not they are off base. But, let’s be honest, he doesn’t hold a monopoly on those views. My mother holds them as well. My dad thankfully has started to “mellow” a bit as he has aged. But, there are a whole host of people who hold these views.
Having said all of that, as I was reading the comments this morning, I kind of got the impression that it was attack Randy morning or something. Yes, he holds views diametrically opposed to what I believe in. Yes, I’ve even been guilty of calling his opinions silly (on at least one occasion). So, my comments are in some respect to me as well. I guess I just think dialogue between opposing parties doesn’t have to be confrontational…does it? Can’t we phrase things in such a way that doesn’t raise the hackles on the other person’s back? I disagree with Randy on just about everything…at the same time, I can have respect for him.
Just an observation. I told Randy that while I pretty much disagree with him on just about everything, I am really glad he’s commenting on here and I hope he stays around. Maybe I just don’t like confrontation…LOL.
j.
FWIW, Timothy’s comments were strong but certainly civil, especially for political remarks 😉 And just to place things in context, you have to remember that Randy has, to my knowledge, never commented here before recently. He has, in fact, been rather vocal about not wanting to have anything to do with XGW. When I attempted to post on his blog, he replaced the standard link to exgaywatch that I placed in my post (as Randy does here with his own URL) with something like “blogthatIdonotwishtopromote.com.”
So when you add this to the rather stark differences of opinion that many of us have with Randy, well I’m rather surprised that things have not been more harsh surrounding his first few posts here. It has to be expected that some will take this as a rare opportunity to actually have a public dialog with him (without fear of having their posts modified or censored), and this is why I rather expected an ambush (which didn’t really happen)
So as long as the exchange is civil, there is nothing wrong with some hard questions – these are after all some pretty important issues and the stakes are high. Randy is welcome to comment here, and I rather hope he will, but no one is going to pull any punches. As I have observed, Randy does quite the same on his own blog.
But do notice Randy that we left your URL intact 😉
Point well taken.