On minimum wage, America does have a radical party - but it is not the Democrats

MOST Americans, myself included, will be deeply relieved when Joe Biden is finally sworn in as president. But almost everyone has a sense of foreboding - not just because of the specific threat of right-wing terrorism, but also because he will take office in a political environment polluted by lies.

Most important, of course, is the Big Lie: the claim, based on nothing whatsoever, that the election was stolen. Has there been anything in US history like the demand from leading Republicans that Mr Biden pursue "unity" when they will not even say publicly that he won fairly? And polls showing that a large majority of rank-and-file Republicans believe that there was major election fraud are deeply scary.

But not far behind in importance is what I think of as the Slightly Smaller Lie - the almost universal insistence on the right that the mildly centre-left leaders of the incoming administration and Congress are, or at least are controlled by, radical socialists. This allegation was almost the entire substance of Republican campaigning during the Georgia Senate run-offs.

One response to this bizarre claim - and it is not a bad response - would be a Bidenesque "C'mon, man. Get real!" But I would like to do a somewhat deeper dive by focusing on one particular issue: Mr Biden's call, as part of his economic recovery plan, for an increase in the minimum wage to US$15 an hour.

Republicans raising objections to his plan have singled out the minimum wage hike as a prime reason for their opposition, although we all know that they would have found some excuse for objecting no matter what he proposed. What is striking about this fight - let us not dignify it by calling it a debate, as if both sides were making real arguments - is that it shows us who the real radicals are.

For what counts as a radical economic proposal? One possible answer would be a proposal that flies in the face of public opinion.

By that criterion, however, Republican politicians are definitely the radicals here. Raising the minimum wage is immensely popular; it is supported by around 70 per cent of voters, including a substantial majority of self-identified Republicans. Or if you do not believe polls, look at what happened in Florida back in November: even as Donald Trump carried the state, a referendum on raising the minimum wage to US$15 won in a landslide.

So the Grand Old Party (GOP) is very much out of step with the public on this issue - it is espousing what is almost a fringe position. Oh, and it is a position that is completely at odds with the claim by many Republicans that they are the true party of the working class.

What if we define radicalism not by opposition to public opinion but by a refusal to accept the conclusions of mainstream economics? Here, too, Democrats are the moderates and Republicans the radicals.

It is true that once upon a time, there was a near-consensus among economists that minimum wages substantially reduced employment. But that was long ago. These days, only a minority of economists think raising the minimum to US$15 would have large employment costs, and a strong plurality believe that a significant rise - although maybe not all the way to US$15 - would be a good idea.

Why did economists change their minds? No, the profession was not infiltrated by Antifa. It was moved by evidence, specifically the results of "natural experiments" that take place when an individual state raises its minimum wage while neighbouring states do not.

The lesson from this evidence is that unless minimum wages are raised to levels higher than anything currently being proposed, hiking the minimum will not have major negative effects on employment - but it will have significant benefits in terms of higher earnings and a reduction in poverty.

But evidence has a well-known liberal bias. Did I mention that on Friday, just days before their eviction, Trump officials released a report claiming that the 2017 tax cut paid for itself?

Voodoo economics may be the most thoroughly debunked doctrine in the history of economic thought, refuted by decades of experience - and voters consistently say that corporations and the wealthy pay too little, not too much, in taxes. Yet tax cuts for the already-privileged are central to the Republican agenda, even under a supposedly populist president.

On economic policy, then, Democrats - even though they have moved somewhat to the left in recent years - are moderates by any standard, while Republicans are wild-eyed radicals. So why does the GOP think that it can get away with claiming the opposite?

Part of the answer is the power of the right-wing disinformation machine, which relentlessly portrays anyone left of centre as the second coming of Pol Pot.

Another part of the answer is that Republicans clearly hope that voters will judge some Democrats by the colour of their skin, not the content of their policy proposals.

In any case, let us be clear: There is indeed a radical party in America, one that, aside from hating democracy, has crazy ideas about how the world works and is at odds with the views of most voters. And it is not the Democrats. NYTIMES