Highly regarded Labor Secretary Tom Perez announced yesterday his candidacy for Chair of the
Democratic National Committee. Perez is thought to have been encouraged in his bid by the Obama-Clinton forces in the Democratic Party who are unhappy with Keith Ellison, the other major candidate for the DNC post. The stage is now set for a contest between the centrist and progressive wings of the DP.
Perez is considered a friend by much of the labor movement, including the AFL- CIO which has endorsed Keith Ellison. The major fault found with Perez by the unions is his advocacy of the TransPacific Pact as an emissary of the Obama administration, and some labor leaders are said to be annoyed that he delayed his announcement until after they had committed to Ellison. The process, they say, has been going on for months, and Perez should have indicated his interest earlier.
In the opinion of progressives, the election of Perez would pose several problems in the rebuilding of the DP from its catastrophic defeat in November. First, it would mean that the rebuilding process would be in the hands of those who have had undisputed control of the party machinery for the last eight years and who led the DP to disaster. Their inability and even unwillingness to confront the Republicans over working class issues is seen as helping cause significant defections from the Democrats in November. The likelihood that they would change course is considered remote, but without changing course, the party is likely to face the same electoral defeats that it did in 2010, 2014 and 2016, defeats that have left the three branches of the Federal government in conservative control.
A Perez leadership of the party might well infuriate the Sanders-Warren wing that is solidly behind Ellison. Certainly the activists who came into the party through the Sanders campaign are unlikely to continue as foot soldiers in a DP dominated by the same old same old Obama- Clinton supporters. More probable is a continuation of the battle for control of the party extending for years.
For social democrats, the key question is, who will be more likely to take the DP in the direction it needs to go to become a social democratic/progressive party, a party that will be responsive to the needs of the people? It’s probably fair to say that Perez is the status quo candidate and that Keith Ellison is the agent of change. It was in the belief for the necessity of change that SDUSA endorsed Keith Ellison this week.
I’ve been impressed by Perez as Sec’t. of Labor. If Hillary had picked him as her VP running mate, the world might look very different now. This “centrist” vs. “progressive” labeling is divisive and harmful to the future of the DP.
Would you agree that the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign have been centrist? If you would not, how do you explain the anemic economic recovery program
that Obama presided over? Where would you place the compromised Affordable Care Act? Do you agree that the Clinton campaign largely ignored the most progressive platform in the history of the DP? Political labels are shorthand for more complex realities, but in this case I think they are justified. I tried to say that Tom Perez is a decent man, but even decent people can be used, or allow themselves to be used, in a
bad cause. Do you think the Obama- Clinton folks would be pushing him if he were not an impressive person, probably the best they could persuade to run against Ellison? If it continues on its present course, it’s hard to see what more “harmful” future the DP could face. If it’s “divisive” to try to change the party, so be it.
A centrist DP is simply a right wing party that’s left leaning on some social issues. The world is in desperate need of progressive leadership.
If the juxtaposition of centrist and progressive is divisive, how about Wall Street vs. middle class? In vain did I wait for some appeal by the centrists to the American people the basis of economic self interest. All of the identity politics could have been subordinate to that theme.
What exactly made Perez “impressive” as Secretary of Labor?
I would imagine that part of what makes Perez such an impressive labor secretary is that he is at least vocal about his support for labor unions. With initiatives like persuader rule, he tried to block unfair tactics to prevent unionization. He also championed in-home health care workers making sure they got paid minimum wage.
Before he was labor sec he was a civil rights lawyer and voting rights advocate. He is pro veteran and the guy paid his way through college on his own.
While I voted to support Ellison, and I stand by that, I do not think Perez was a bad choice. Especially in the wake of the election, in which a lot of American labor voted for Trump, I think it would be good to have a Chair that could rally the support of unions again.