There is a degree of truth here. But the argument for the most part is a red herring. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party did not cook up this fight: The establishment wing did. Before Perez entered the race, the party was coalescing around Ellison as the natural choice to lead the party. The establishment that has spent the last three months whining about the DNC race becoming a proxy battle was responsible for creating that proxy battle in the first place. Even richer are the establishment types who say the role of DNC head isn’t important enough to warrant such scrutiny—then why so much effort to get Perez in?
The selection of Perez over Ellison suggests that the party establishment is still uneasy with progressives, many of whom are bringing energy to state and local elections that hasn’t been there for years. By choosing Perez, the party is once again saying it doesn’t trust progressives.
And, as Chang wrote this week, the fact that the role of DNC chair is not as all-powerful as some assume only makes the case for Ellison stronger—that he was denied the role suggests that the party is unwilling to make even relatively minor concessions to progressives when it comes to party power.
But there’s another reason why Democrats—not just progressives—should be concerned. The 2016 election was a disaster: A proto-fascist is in power, both houses of Congress (and soon the Supreme Court) are in the GOP’s hands, and the Democratic Party is weaker at…