Jacob Weisberg’s column in today’s Financial Times is a sensible examination of why president Bush is both wrong to push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and why it will fail (subscribers only). But he gets awfully muddled by trying to be politically even-handed.
Any political party counts on having a few hot buttons it can push at those moments when it is a few points behind in the polls with not much time until election day. These issues have certain characteristics – a whiff of pandering, the flavour of insincerity, an aura of desperation. They aim to stir passion but have little, if any, effect on most people’s lives… Flag-burning has long been such an issue for Republicans. Raising the minimum wage sometimes serves the same purpose for Democrats.
Huh? Raising the minimum wage may be a touchstone issue for Democrats and it almost surely does appeal to the party’s base. But how on earth is it “pandering” or insincere? How can anyone argue that it has “little, if any, effect on most people’s lives”? And how can anyone equate an issue that has a real economic rationale (whether you want to argue pro or con) with one that is purely stirring emotions?
If you did an analogy test and claimed flag-burning:Republicans most resembled minimum wage:Democrats you’d certainly fail.
You’re quite right.
What could Weisberg have been thinking? I suspect that he’s talking about Democratic attempts to raise the federal minimum wage since 1994 or whenever it was that the Republicans took control of Congress: ie, efforts which were doomed from the start but which still played to the Democratic base. And which, even if they were successful, would have had any kind of effect only in the relatively small number of states which don’t have a minimum wage of their own which is higher than the $5.15 or whatever the federal minimum wage is.