Who are the PUMAs?
Hint: we’re not who Bonnie Erbe thinks we are:
I’ve been so busy being a PUMA that I’ve had little time to read about PUMAs. Or I should say, read about myself, since in America it’s the media that tells us who and what we are. It’s like Patsy said on the radio the other night: here she is, a Black woman and proud of it, come to find out that because she doesn’t support Obama, she’s a racist. “Guess I better get measured for my hood,” she said.
So the media narrative about PUMAs is of interest, since in good Goebbels fashion it’s bound to be far more important than the actual truth. And the media narrative about PUMAs appears to be unchanged from the media narrative about Hillary supporters during the primaries: we’re all old white racist conservative crypto-Republicans who think Obama is too liberal.
Too liberal? Obama?
As I’ve written many times, my problem with Obama is that he’s not liberal enough. If anybody’s a crypto-Republican, it’s him. The Obama movement combines all the worst elements of Republicanism into one juggernaut package: Rovian cheating, Reaganesque marketing, Bushian pseudo-religious fervor, wingnut propaganda, mindless worship of authority, hatred of women, contempt for the disadvantaged, and of course GOP political positions on everything from FISA to the environment.
The PUMAs I know feel the same. We’re feminists. We’re liberals. We’re a hell of a lot more liberal — truly liberal — than the callow young white men who form Obama’s cheering squad. Those guys are indistinguishable from the Jonah Goldbergs of the world, though they’re too self-infatuated to realize it.
But the PUMA movement — the coalition of Democrats who reject Obama — is broader than just my crowd. It’s true that there are some PUMAs who complain that Obama is “far left,” or who worry aloud that he’s a front for “far left” extremists of some kind. But what do they mean by that?
They don’t mean that he’s too progressive. Obviously he’s not. Every PUMA knows that Obama ran a dirty campaign, that he intends to continue and even expand Bush’s policies for faith-based programs and government spying, that he’s soft on women’s rights, that he endorses the Cheney energy plan. And every PUMA is unhappy about that. Every PUMA wants a Democratic nominee who actually represents Democratic values.
What disturbs those who talk about the “far left” is something completely different: it’s Obama’s connections to people like William Ayers and, tangentially, to Louis Farrakhan — people who are typically labeled “the radical left” or “the far left.”
The problem here is one of nomenclature. The current class of tags we’re working with is insufficient to adequately describe reality.
Consider: the Nation of Islam, an extremely patriarchal organization that preaches female inferiority, is allegedly on the “left.” But so are feminists. So are gay rights activists. So are political atheists. Cramming everyone who resists the White Christian Male hegemony into one category makes no sense. And treating “liberal” or “progressive” as if they’re the weak end of a continuum that culminates in “far left” results in sheer absurdity. By that reckoning, I suppose, if you’re a moderate leftist you might belong to NOW, but if you’re really leftist you’re a prime candidate for the Nation of Islam. If you’re a good liberal you might belong to the Sierra Club, but if you’re really hard-core you probably give money to Hezbollah. Huh?
What we need to do is get behind the labels and understand what people are really saying. Those PUMAs who think Obama is “too far left” aren’t talking about domestic policies. They’re not talking about abortion or gay rights or any of the other issues that typically distinguish Democrats and Republicans. What they’re talking about, I think, is Obama’s connections (whatever those may be) to wild-eyed pistol wavers.
For the record, I don’t share those concerns. I don’t think Obama is a fellow traveler with any terrorist organizations, nor is he a front for extremists (unless you categorize neo-Republican financiers and propagandists as extremists). And the PUMAs who do worry about that stuff are only one subset of the coalition.
What all PUMAs agree on is that the Obama movement represents the abandonment of basic Democratic values. All PUMAs are “progressives” or “liberals” in the sense that they demand a Democratic Party that continues to stand up to the Republican assault on women’s rights, social programs, and the Constitution. They want a Democratic nominee who’s actually a Democrat.
And that’s not Obama.
Maybe this would be a good time to re-post some of what I’ve written over the past months:
It’s not about Obama vs. McCain
Archimedes’ Lever
Why I will not vote for Obama even if he’s the nominee — and why you shouldn’t either
The Democrats really, really don’t deserve our votes
PUMAs and Sexism
Pumas vs. Possums: this is what a grassroots movement looks like
19 Responses to “Who are the PUMAs?”
-
Lexia says:
Women really are the canaries in the coal mine as far as human rights go. I remember waking up in outrage in the early 80s to my PBS station featuring some nut opposing women’s right to ownership of their bodies as harbinger of the “balanced” right-wing reporting PBS was to increasingly feature.
Now their “women’s panelist” uses this kind of barely disguised framing: Hillary’s supporter = ooh, yuk, old, scared, penny-pinching, white folks; Obama’s supporters=new, shiny, hip, cool young people. That was as far as I could stand before hitting the back button. All of it fact-free opinion, of course.
Thank you for keeping the facts out there, Dr. Violet. God knows even the erstwhile “liberal” media won’t.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:14 am EST -
Happenstance says:
We know there are progressives–also known as “liberals”–and then there are Progressives–the Capital-P, progressiver-than-thou phonies, who are better known as fauxgressives.
The fauxgressives are the problem. But the problem in dealing with them is that so many people can’t discern between the two, and if you start talking trash about (phony) “progressives,” they circle the wagons and start screaming, because they too are “progressive.”
But fauxgressives have more in common with neoconservatives than liberals/progressives. They do not tolerate deviation from the hivemind; they will stoop to ANY means to silence such dissent; they are more obstructionist than anything else; and they have, not a habit of, nor a penchant for, but a devotion to selling out the ideals they constantly profess. If you live in the San Francisco area, this is best illustrated by supervisor Chris Daly (fauxgressive) and Gavin Newsom (liberal). Fauxgressives deal in non-binding nonsense, arguing for arguing’s sake, and obstruction. Action and solutions enrage them.
Nationally, it was fauxgressives who, when not screaming about important things like “homophobic” candy bar commercials, insisted that Nader was the only liberal choice, because Gore and Bush were exactly the same. Four years later, they insisted that Nader was the only choice, because Kerry and Bush were exactly the same. Suddenly, according to the fauxs this time we must all think of the consequences of not uniting behind the party candidate.
Problem is, one thing the fauxgressives and neocons share more than any other trait is their blind hatred of Clinton. Fauxs hate effectiveness–it weakens their base–and they hate a Democrat who gets things done more than they hate any Republican. Remember, at one point the fauxs were wondering aloud if Obama was “black enough” and trying to sell everyone on Draft Gore, because suddenly he wasn’t the same as Bush. But when the contest was between Clinton and Obama, they would’ve gone for Obama even if he’d promised to nuke China on day one and have everyone on his enemies list publicly executed, because, you know, “Anyone But Clinton.”
(Even now, with Clinton campaigning for Obama, the knives are out, by Dowd, by cartoons from the L.A. Times and Boston Herald, all portraying Hillary as a scheming witch bent on destroying The Chosen One. They continue to gobble up and regurgitate every neocon smear against her, even as they hypocritically accuse her of having aided McCain by running against Obama to begin with.)
But now Clinton’s not really in the contest, and the ABC faction is losing interest. Obama is doing his part, of course, to drive away progressive and fauxgressive alike, but it’s only a matter of time before Crooks&Liars starts wanking for Nader again (if they haven’t already).
AND THERE’S THE REAL PROBLEM. The “liberal” blogosphere is swarming with fauxgressives posing as progressives, and they overrun the big blogs. It’s not about “liberals vs. conservatives” anymore; they’re middle-of-the-road these days, caught between psychotic radical factions on both sides.
Change? Not happening until we change THAT.
(Forgive me if I’m repetitious and overlong. Been beating this same drum for ages now. Don’t even know if I’ve been on this block…)
-
kenoshaMarge says:
We know there will be no honest assessment of PUMA from the media. We don’t fit their story line. We also don’t buy their particular brand of b.s. and thus must be smeared, double-smeared, and re-smeared. It’s the American Way. Or at least it is now.
PUMA will survive, IMHO, and it will grow, again IMHO, because it IS and actual bottom up, grassroots phenomena.
We are the one’s they didn’t expect. And we are not just gonna go away. And unless and until they get it through their thick skulls that this movement is way past just being about Senator Clinton they will never understand PUMA.
Perhaps they never will anyway. How could they understand people that are simply fighting for Democracy in America and Honesty in Media. Such silly trivial things for bitter, old ladies to be concerned about.
-
sister of ye says:
Off topic, but it kind of plays into the theme. I got 2 Dem fundraising calls today by early afternoon. I’m afraid both volunteers got an earful, though without a bit of profanity. In essesense, I told them I didn’t have the money or the inclination to give to a Dem party that wants to be Republicans.
The weird thing was that the first caller, a young woman, said that the DCCC needs money to give Obama a veto-proof majority. I’m afraid it was only after I hung up (hey, it was still morning and it’s Saturday) when I thought – why would we need a veto-proof majority with a Dem prez? Either someone did a real hack job of cut-and-pasting her script, or it’s a revealing slip about what kind of president Obama would be.
-
Perry Logan says:
Amen, Violet. I sometimes feel like you are speaking my thoughts.
We will just have to keep on roaring till they get the PUMA message.
For me, the most important part of our message is that Obama and his gang are cheating, using Rovean tactics, using threats and intimidation, etc.
These are facts well known to any PUMA. But you’ll notice they never get into the mainstream narrative. It’s much more comfortable to believe we are all sore losers, and not the angry victims of a coup…
The MSM doesn’t want to hear any of what we’re saying–least of all the fact that the Democrats have gone bad. If you’re not with PUMA, you’re not a real Democrat.
-
DeniseB says:
People don’t seem to get that it’s not really about Hillary – it’s about him. He’s NOT a liberal. He’s not even running as a Democrat; does he ever talk about the values or traditions or accomplishments or dreams of the Democratic Party? No, because he’s running against the previous generations of Democrats as much as against the Republicans.
The “post-partisans” should start their own damned party instead of hijacking ours. The Opportunists Party, for people with no political philosophy.
-
thebewilderness says:
Bankruptcy Biden for Veep.
It doesn’t get much stupider than that. -
Ciccina says:
Brava, Violet.
I must wholeheartedly agree with kenoshaMarge when she says there will be no honest treatment of PUMA by the media. PUMA is identified as a female-driven movement, and so by definition (a) cannot be important or about any “real” issues; (b) must be irrational and emotional; and (c) must be a failure.
(We are, after all, the Other!)
You are right Violent that the treatment of PUMAs now is a direct extension of the Hillary-voter narrative. Hillary voters were moved by “her tears,” our emotions, our identities (just voting for a woman because she’s a woman; voting against Obama because he’s black) – anything but facts, ideas and principles. Now its more of the same.
My jaw dropped when I read that Obama’s text message announcement went out at 3am – 3am being the name of the Clinton ad that apparently really got under the Possum-in-Chief’s skin. Here he’s supposed to be riding the unity pony into Denver, and what does he do? Flips the bird to 18 million voters. Arrogant, immature, petty – we’ve had enough of that in the White House, thank you very much, we don’t need any more.
-
Lost Clown says:
Uh, happenstance, a lot of us non-fauxgressives have said that the parties are way too similar for years and years. I voted for (and campaigned for) Nader. Don’t lump me in with fauxgressives.
There are a lot of *actually* leftists who have problems with the fact that our government is controlled by the interests of big business/corporations. That the environment and women get kicked around and given the shaft. I hate both parties. Neither is at all progressive and the Democrats (as a party) certainly haven’t been in decades.
I campaigned for Hillary and I campaigned hard for her. This was going to be the first time since Clinton that I was going to vote non-Green party. (Go Cynthia McKinney!) But that’s only because she was the only candidate who spoke enough of a populist message (which is how I classify myself politically) and well with women’s rights….
Yes I do think that the actual liberal choice is the Green Party. I did 4 years ago and 4 years before that. And that makes me fauxgressive how? They are much more progressive then Gore or Kerry were. Hands down. I resent your implication.
(I hope this makes sense…I should be packing for Denver right now. ARGH)
-
ginmar says:
You know, if the fucking media keeps going on like this, I’m going to start burning bras. Fuck ‘em.
-
Marge Twain says:
Thank you, Violet.
Every time someone calls me a Republican in disguise I start foaming at the mouth and sputtering with rage because it’s so,so far from the truth. You’ve provided me with some fine rhetorical fodder here, once again.My husband the feminist started a facebook group called Progressives Against Obama. There wasn’t another group out there like it and it only has five members now. I hope that some of the community here will join. I think it’s another good way to raise visibility and counter the media message about folks like us. Here’s a link:
-
Marge Twain says:
@Lost Clown: I voted for Clinton in the primary and I’m voting for McKinney in November. She is absoultely true progressive.
I say it’s fauxgressive to insist that people vote for the Democrat when he doesn’t represent progressive values like so many of the ‘bots have been doing. -
Happenstance says:
Many fauxgressives operate under the infantile delusion that a third political party can be built from the presidency down simply by voting for an attention-hungry gadfly who wears the capital-P on his chest.
Frankly, part of me would love to see Nader win: the completely-lost look on his face, as he addressed a one-hundred-percent hostile/disinterested Congress, would totally be worth the ensuing collapse of the entire hemisphere.
A Brief History Of Recent “Progressive” Voting:
2000: “Gore and Bush are the same! Dems and Repugs are the same! Vote Nader or stay home! For a clean conscience!”
2004: “Kerry’s scary! Both parties are exactly the same! Compromise in politics? Never! Who cares about the quagmire? Vote Nader or stay home! Keep that conscience clean! Sure, Bush may win again, but it’s all about you and your precious conscience!”
2007: “Hillary’s a !%%$#& @&%@$%%@ @^%$#@^@!! (Although I don’t normally say that about women, because I’m Progressive!) If she gets the nomination, I’ll vote for my cat even if it means a GOP victory! To hell with the party! To hell with the consequences!! My consciennnnnnnce! It must remain pure at any cost!!”
2008: “Oh! Uh…we, like, have to do the responsible thing and vote for the official party candidate. Think of the consequences if you don’t! Every vote counts, you know! No, I am NOT a flip-flopping hypocrite…I’m just Progressive! Sure, he’s, um, being pragmatic right now, but, hey, compromise is what politics is all about!”
Part of the solution? Part of the problem? In the end, you only get to pick one.
-
No Blood for Hubris says:
I think he’s a timid centrist.. I always thought that..
He’s not liberal. He’s not progressive.
THAT’S THE PROBLEM.
-
Anna Belle says:
If anybody’s a crypto-Republican, it’s him. The Obama movement combines all the worst elements of Republicanism into one juggernaut package: Rovian cheating, Reaganesque marketing, Bushian pseudo-religious fervor, wingnut propaganda, mindless worship of authority, hatred of women, contempt for the disadvantaged, and of course GOP political positions on everything from FISA to the environment.
Another fantastic post, Dr. Socks. I think I have the word you’re looking for: neoprogressive. Like neoconservatives, neoprogs aren’t interested in the mother ideologies (conservatism and progressivism), they are only interested in posturing them as a way to win votes. They literally use our political foundations to market lies–about themselves, about our relationships, about our nation and about our world. And they insidiously introduce a market-based approach to politics. I’m not talking about money, here, but power. The result is a candidate that is a product, not a person, and the currency is your vote, which allows them access to power, and, consequently, more money.
I wrote about it in Barry and the Neoprogressives.
-
found this awhile ago... says:
Liberal? You’ve got to be kidding. In the past weeks Obama has:
• campaigned in support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a progressive challenger
• reversed himself and announced his support of FISA
• repudiated Wesley Clark and said Clark had “dishonored John McCain’s service”
• condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper ad criticizing Gen. Petraeus
• defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, including the “the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties” for “attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself” and “blaming America for all that was wrong with the world”
• announced is support for continuing Bush’s faith based initiatives program, including allowing religious charities discriminate based on religious belief
• hired the pro-Walmart economist Jason Furman as his economic policy director
• named Jim Messina, who served as pro-corporate Max Baucus’s chief of staff, as his campaign chief of staff
• formed a Working Group on National Security that consists Warren Christopher, Sam Nunn, David Boren, Madeleine Albright and other old world pols
• made statements in support of NAFTA, which he now says he won’t revisit
• released a campaign ad which hits on right-wing themes like “cutting taxes” and “moving people from welfare to work”
‘ announced that women with mental health problems don’t deserve access to abortionAll this came on top of Obama’s earlier
• praising Reagan and Bush
• arguing that religious politicians can’t be expected to leave their beliefs at the door
• stating that Bush hasn’t quite met the standard of “grave, intentional breaches to presidential authority”
• refusing to support Barbara Boxer’s resolution asking that voting irregularities in Ohio in 2004 at least be looked in to; Obama said Bush won Ohio” fair & square”
• praising gay men who do them the kindness of not “proselytizing
• supporting an immigration plan sponsored by John McCain, which does not include benefits or amnesty for undocumented immigrants
• bragging that he can attract Republican votersAnd in his little time in the Senate he
• promoted nuclear energy as “green,” earning plaudits from the nuclear power industry as it works to resume building nuclear power plants across the country
• voted to continue to fund the Iraq war
• opposed John Murtha’s call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq
• refused to join 13 senators who voted against confirming Condi Rice as SOS
• voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.
• voted against a bankruptcy bill amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.
• opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872.
• did not support the single-payer health care bill sponsored by Kucinich & Conyers
• worked to pass a class-action “reform” bill that would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits, including those based on discrimination, consumer fraud, and wage-and-hour violations. This bill was heavily pushed by financial firms, which make up his second-biggest single bloc of donors.Liberal? If this is the record of a liberal, than what does the conservative look like?
-
Professor Zero says:
But Clinton’s also a Republican. Do you mean you’re going to support right wing McCain over liberal Republican Obama because you prefer liberal Republican Clinton? If so, that’s w.e.i.r.d. What about McKinney or is she too lefty for “progressives”
or too Black “feminists” (sorry, but that’s what it sounds like here)? -
ginmar says:
Are these guys totally deaf, or what? Learn how to read, dipshit.
-
Violet says:
Professor Zero, read some of the older posts I listed, particularly “It’s not about Obama vs. McCain.”
Personally I will probably vote McKinney because I agree with the Green Party on everything (as do most feminists). But she has absolutely no chance to win. Most people in America laugh at the very thought of voting for a third party. They consider it a folly, a waste of time. Doesn’t matter how great the candidate is; he/she has no chance.
“too Black “feminists””
It sounds to me as if you’re actually implying — incredibly enough — that feminists are racists who are offended by McKinney’s blackness. If so, then you’re on the wrong blog.
« Comment of the Day | Home | Jesus and Judas »
