My Two Cents

We have been having some interesting discussions lately about the future of PUMA.  That’s not anything new, we’ve been talking about PUMA since the day it was born.  We’re not the only ones who have been talking about PUMA either, our ears have been burning since last summer.

Besides ourselves, the two main groups talking about PUMA are people who should be our friends but inexplicably don’t want to be and people who never were our friends and never will be.  Unfortunately, too many members of both groups don’t know PUMA from pimple cream. The first group should have spent more time talking to us and the second group should just talk to the voices in their heads and leave us out of it.

There have been some thoughtful, well reasoned posts here and at other PUMA blogs in recent weeks, and there have also been a few things said that weren’t quite so thoughtful or well reasoned.  One of the major problems we’re running into is trying to define PUMA, both collectively and individually.

As soon as you start trying to define what PUMA is, you also define what it is not.  If you say PUMA is a group of Democrats in exile then you are excluding Independents and Republicans.  If you say PUMAs are liberals then you are excluding moderates and conservatives.

How do we decide what definition to use?  Everyone has their own definition, some of which vary widely.  We could try to reach a consensus but who gets to vote?  Those of us with our own blogs have louder megaphones than those who don’t but that doesn’t give us the right to define PUMA for everyone else.

Even if a range of choices was prepared how would we put it to a vote?  We don’t have a list of registered PUMA members we could send ballots to and if we posted an online poll the obsessed blogstalkers would gleefully freep the results and would post comments inviting wonktards and cheetos to do the same.

If we held an organizing convention not everyone could attend, but you could be certain that some of the attendees would be blogstalkers and other Obot ratfuckers hoping to cause mischief and still others would be fringe lunatics with hidden agendas.

We couldn’t make the convention “invitation only” unless some individual or small group took it upon themselves to decide who was welcome and who was not.  That would undermine the whole concept of PUMA as a grassroots democratic group.

PUMA was born here at The Confluence a little less than a year ago.  At first, we were PUMA.  That lasted about two days, and suddenly there were a bunch a people I never heard before of calling themselves PUMAs and taking actions as if it was their organization.

I’m not criticizing Will Bower, Darragh Murphy or anyone else for the actions they took.  They accomplished a lot more than I would have.  But the circumstances at the time were such that we made accomplishing certain goals (like getting Hillary’s name on the nominating ballot) our priority and so PUMA was never clearly defined or organized.

There were also legitimate concerns that if we tried to define PUMA too narrowly we would become exclusive at a time when our goal was to be inclusive.  Let’s not forget that we came together online, but in real life we are a diverse group that is scattered across the country.

Hillary was what brought many of us together, but both her campaign and the election are over.  Without a common purpose some people feel that our differences are more important than the things we share.  We are also seeing that PUMA is in the eye of the beholder.  There are lots of different ideas about what PUMA is, (or should be) what it should do and who is or is not welcome in the movement.

As for me, PUMA means ideology free from partizanship, principles without party.  To me, PUMA is not a party, it’s a rejection of parties, kinda like an organization of anarchists.  PUMA is the un-party.  That means rejecting all party labels, including the one that says PUMA.

So that’s what I’ve decided to do.  I will no longer use the PUMA label to describe myself.  I’m not going anywhere, I’ll be right here doing the same things, standing up for the same values and principles.  All I’m doing is discarding a label.  I’m not quitting PUMA, I can’t quit because I never really  joined.  There’s no membership roster with my name on it, at least not as far as I know anyway.

PUMA has become a distraction for me.  I’m tired of talking about it and I damn sure don’t want to argue about it.  I am pessimistic about its future and cynical about its potential.  So  I leave PUMA into the hands of whoever wants it, to organize and define however they wish.

This has nothing to do with anyone in particular, so nobody deserves any blame (or credit) for my decision. I don’t believe my decision should affect anyone other than myself.  I certainly hope no one will treat me any differently, as I plan to continue being the same obnoxious and rude jerk that you’re all acquainted with.

Let me add that even if those who remain associated with PUMA are successful in defining and organizing it into a political entity that shares my values and goals I doubt I would apply for membership.

As Groucho Marx said, “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”