The minimum-wage wedge

December 27, 2005

Rick Klein had a good piece in the Boston Globe over the weekend on Dems embracing a wedge issue that, they hope, will do for them what anti-gay-marriage initiatives did for Republicans.

New Year’s Day will bring the ninth straight year in which the federal minimum wage has remained frozen at $5.15 an hour, marking the second-longest period that the nation has had a stagnant minimum wage since the standard was established in 1938.

Against that backdrop, Democrats are preparing ballot initiatives in states across the country to boost turnout of Democratic-leaning voters in 2006. Labor, religious, and community groups have launched efforts to place minimum-wage initiatives on ballots in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, and Montana next fall.

Democrats say the minimum wage could be for them what the gay-marriage referendums were in key states for Republicans last year — an easily understood issue that galvanizes their supporters to show up on Election Day.

In principle, this sounds very compelling, especially in an election cycle in which Republicans are likely to face an uphill climb. Of the seven states that will likely have a minimum wage increase on the ballot, three feature Senate pick-up opportunities for Dems (Arizona, Ohio, and Montana). As strategies to boost turnout in the Dems’ favor go, this seems like a good one.

The only flaw in the approach is that hasn’t worked according to plan lately. Last year, minimum wage increases passed easily in Florida and Nevada (with 71% support and 69% support, respectively). Voters heard all the predictable horror stories about massive job losses if wages went up, and they immediately saw through the nonsense.

Bush, however, beat Kerry in both states, as voters who strongly wanted a wage hike nevertheless backed the candidate who opposed a minimum wage increase. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was reportedly scared to death of this issue appearing on the ballot, but his concerns were unwarranted. Floridians overwhelmingly backed a minimum wage increase — while supporting a Republican presidential and senatorial candidate who opposed the idea.

To be sure, the issue has all the makings of a perfect wedge issue for Democrats. The polls tend to be one sided, Republicans are put on the defensive, and working-class families who may find the right’s social conservatism appealing nevertheless want to see a little more money in their pocket.

The trick seems to be getting voters to connect the issue to the party that represents their economic interests.

I think it’s on the right track and if used well it could be very successfull, however, it’s not the equivalent of same-sex marriage. I personally would love to see the tide turn and see people getting all worked up over fundamental economic issues– you know, the issues the government should and does have power over. But I’m not holding my breath because one is far more rational of an issue than the other.

  • An increase in the minimum wage is actually an issue which Republican voters can get behind. Whereas in 2004, not too many R’s could vote for Kerry. Minimum Wage is a wedge between big business interests and workers.

    The midterm question is: Does Howard Dean have a plan and marketing campaign similar to “Contract with America”?

    You’d think it would be easier to make the case that Rs have been really lousy custodians of the government and the current Congress is the most corrupt in history; it says alot about Ds that the case hasn’t been made effectively, yet.

  • The minimum wage issue has to be vertical integrated–from Democratic congressional leaders to candidate for governor and “dog-cacther.” All Democrats need to sing from the same sheet of music. Here in Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell is running for reelection in 2006 and is trying to get an increase in the state’s minimum wage through the Republican-contolled legislature. Whether he succeeds or fails, the outcome will be used as a accomplishment or something to club the Republicans with. That’s good politics.

  • I think to be a true wedge issue it must resonant in the lizard brain of people. Think of the two great Republican wedges of the last forty years: Race and Gay Marriage. These are issues that people do not not think rationally about. They react. For economic fairness to work as a wedge, there must be widespread visible economic suffering. While things are bad, they are not now that bad.

  • I think the reason why the minimum wage issue didn’t lift Kerry (or other Democratic candidates) to victory in Nevada or Florida was simply that they didn’t affiliate themselves with it. I remember reading that Kerry, showing his typically visionary political judgment, feared alienating small business owners in both states–so he didn’t say a word.

    Democrats should be loud and proud for the higher minimum wage next year. Let the Republicans choose between standing up against fairness and aggravating their business constituency. At worst, we’ll probably see the result of those two states in 2004: higher minimum wage floors, whatever the electoral results.

  • #5 is right. You have to actually support the issue to get a boost from it. Not supporting it probably just hurt Kerry. Anyway, Kerry was such a loser.

    • Comments are closed.