That’s what I could be if I land this job as editor of the LP News. I had two one-hour interviews today (yeah, Saturday) for the job, and they went better than I could have hoped.
The first hour was with the outgoing editor and I thought that was going to be the easiest part. This was the technical aspect discussion: Do I have the skills? Could I handle such and such? Can I handle the amount of work required? Or at least that’s what I thought the questions were going to be. They ended up being much harder, and I found myself struggling a lot. He asked, “Okay, so you’re the editor, do you run this ad?” for six different scenarios. He asked what I thought the job of the paper was (my rushed answer of “to present all sides of Libertarian cases so that readers can make decisions” was incorrect, obviously so for a Party newsletter), and how I’d start finding news to fill 36 blank pages each and every month (on this I fared a little better, saying that I’d find out about Libertarian news from press releases and conferences, but only after I said I’d sort through wire services for relevant topics first. I did get some questions right on the money, like if I would publish a recent incident where a Libertarian candidate spit on an interviewer; the answer was yes, since it was part of a larger story where the Libertarian party as a whole handle the incident well by publicly denoucing the candidate (they’re endorsing a write-in campaign in the California race in question now).
After the first hour I felt pretty bad since I had all the skills and had hoped to sail on through. I really had to think more than I expected to and my inexperience probably showed pretty clearly. The next interview with the Executive Director and the National Chairman of the Libertarian Party went pretty well. I’d even say excellently, in fact. I made them aware of how excited I was to be given an opportunity that would utilize all my skills, despite the fact that I was naturally a little nervous. When giving them my background I told them about how my beliefs came around after agreeing with the Democrats on personal freedoms but realizing after taking economics that a free market economy was a good thing; basically a Republican that doesn’t go for all the restrictions on personal freedoms and the God crap.
One of the highlights of the interview was when they asked me what I could do to improve the paper, what my vision was. I told them honestly that I’d have to lay hands on the nuts and bolts of the thing first before I could have a vision. The immediate follow-up question was this: Let’s get specific then, and talk about how you would make it more friendly or enjoyable to read. I gave them an anecdote about how there was this one friend of mine who was such a Libertarian that he referred to himself as an Objectivist, and that every time he had a discussion with someone he came across as pretty pompous almost all the time; I used that as a segue to say that when discussing politics and philosophy, it was necessary to realize that there is an emotional aspect that can’t be ignored, lest you alienate your audience, and that was an important part of writing something intended for non-Party members’ eyes. I think I put it pretty well, because the National Chairman immediately said that he would like to see the paper start reaching out to non-Party members (something that the outgoing editor didn’t indicate at all; he kept pushing the fact that the audience is all hardcore on liberty stuff). He even said that a good example of what I was talking about is how that because of a lot of pushy christians, he has the feeling that if heaven is full of people like them he wants no part of it. So after that I felt like I had at the very least made a good personal impression, especially since they referred to my “pushy Libertarian” phrase two more times later on.
The nitty-gritty of the position would have to be worked out later since, well, there is a lot to work out. Because of campaign finance reform, they have to make the position a contract thing. So they’d give a lump sum to the chosen candidate, and that person would report to the Chairman (and the Board) and basically run the whole damn thing. The salary would basically be the difference between ad revenue and the cost of printing (but get this: the printing is donated at cost by a Party member). So depending on whether ad revenues go up or down, I could potentially work my ass off and see a pretty good chunk of change. And since it is a contract position, there are no set hours at all. In the Nat. Chairman’s words: “If you can bang the thing out in 60 hours a month, you’d be getting a pretty darn decent hourly rate.” (Or something to that effect, but definitely with a laugh.) I could even start to hire a staff if I saw fit.
So it looks like it would be a lot of work, but something that I could definitely handle after a few weeks of getting used to. Not only that, but it could pay really well, too. I’ll definitely be disappointed if I don’t get the job, but I won’t be crushed though. I’m definitely a good candidate, and seeing how I was one of four chosen to interview for this one I’m rarin’ to apply to all sorts of other jobs now should this one fall through. Hot damn I’m good!