Paul Waldman

Paul Waldman is a weekly columnist and senior writer for The American Prospect. He also writes for the Plum Line blog at The Washington Post and The Week and is the author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.

Recent Articles

Why Democrats Upped Their Demands on the Minimum Wage -- and Why Republicans Should Embrace It

Democrats unveiled their latest proposal to increase the minimum wage yesterday, and it shows not just how quickly the party's consensus has moved on this issue, but what activists can accomplish by changing the terms of debate. We don't know exactly when a bill to raise the minimum wage will pass Congress and be signed by the president, but it will happen eventually. When it does, lots of Republicans are going to vote for it, for the same reason they have in the past: because the political risks of voting no are too high. The biggest question may be whether the next increase is the one that finally eliminates the minimum wage as a political issue.

The minimum wage has been at $7.25 since 2009, the last step in a series of increases set by the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. That bill was signed by President Bush, and got the support not only of every Democrat in Congress, but also of 82 Republicans in the House and 45 in the Senate. Republicans may be standing in the way of an increase now, but eventually they'll let it through, if for no other reason than the desire to stop the pummeling Democrats inflict on them over the issue.

But look how the Democratic position has changed. In his State of the Union address in 2013, President Obama proposed raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour. A year later, he proposed raising it to $10.10. His administration has now endorsed a $12 minimum; Secretary of Labor Tom Perez appeared at yesterday's press conference with congressional Democrats to give the administration's support for this new bill sponsored by Senator Patty Murray and Representative Bobby Scott.

Even more important may be the fact that indexing the minimum wage—having it rise automatically with the cost of living—has now also become a central Democratic demand. The Murray-Scott bill would index it not to inflation but to median wages (Danny Vinik argues that that isn't a good idea), but the point is that no Democratic proposal from now on is going to exclude indexing.

It seems pretty clear that the activist movement around a $15 minimum wage has pulled the consensus among Democratic politicians toward a higher demand. Which isn't surprising—it's called the anchoring effect, and it's something both sides use in negotiations over money all the time. I say I'll give you $20 for your old lawnmower, knowing that I'll be willing to give you more for it, while you say you want $100 for it, knowing you'll be willing to take less. We're each hoping that our initial offer will set a context that changes how the eventual number is perceived. It's why stores put labels that read, "Regular price $99—reduced to $49!" on items. The $99 is purely fictional; its only purpose is to make $49 seem like a great deal.

The discussion of a $15 minimum wage made $10.10 seem too modest to those who want to see the wage increased, so they've now settled on $12 (which would be phased in between now and 2020). So why should Republicans embrace the latest proposal or something like it? They may like to see a lower increase, and they might be able to negotiate one—perhaps to $10.10. But they really ought to embrace indexing, for the simple reason that it means we aren't likely to debate the federal minimum wage much once it's in effect. This issue is absolutely brutal for them—minimum wage increases are regularly supported by over 70 percent of the public, and the discussion reinforces the one thing above all others that Republicans wish people wouldn't believe about them, that they only care about the interests of the wealthy.

So if you actually passed a law that increased the minimum wage and indexed it to inflation, it would keep rising slowly to keep up with the cost of living, and there wouldn't be much reason to have arguments about it. Everyone would get something they want. 

Photo of the Day, Socialism On the March Edition

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, speaking to the press after announcing his candidacy for president. Here's something I wrote about him earlier today.

Indulging the Lunatics on the Right

Ask a Republican about the elaborate conspiracy theories that are so popular with many on the far right, and she's likely to respond that, sure, those people are there, but liberals have their wackos, too. But there is a difference, in not just how far to the center of Republican power the wackos get (consider how many Republican members of Congress still aren't sure that Barack Obama was born in the United States), but in the way the wackos are treated by the rest of the party. Which brings us to Texas:

Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the Texas Guard to monitor federal military exercises in Texas after some citizens have lit up the Internet saying the maneuvers are actually the prelude to martial law.

The operation causing rampant suspicions is a new kind of exercise involving elite teams such as the SEALs and Green Berets from four military branches training over several states from July 15 to Sept. 15

Called Jade Helm 15, the exercise is one of the largest training operations done by the military in response to what it calls the evolving nature of warfare. About 1,200 special operations personnel will be involved and move covertly among the public. They will use military equipment to travel between seven Southwestern states from Texas to California.

On Monday, command spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria attended a Bastrop County Commissioners Court meeting to answer community questions and was met with hostile fire. Lastoria, in response to some of the questions from the 150 who attended, sought to dispel fears that foreign fighters from the Islamic State were being brought in or that Texans’ guns would be confiscated, according to a report in the Austin American-Statesman.

So in response to the fact that some of Texas's dumbest citizens emerged from their doomsday prepper shelters long enough to harangue a colonel about their belief that martial law is coming to their state, Governor Abbott issued an order to the National Guard to monitor the movements of the U.S. military just to make sure they aren't herding citizens into re-education camps or dropping Islamic State infiltrators into Galveston. I guess we're safe from that, for the moment anyway.

Every politician encounters nutballs from time to time, and it isn't always easy to figure out how to respond to them. But what's remarkable about this is that we aren't talking about an offhand remark Abbott made, or an occasion in which a constituent went on a rant to him and he nodded along to be friendly instead of saying, "You, sir, are out of your mind." This is an official action the governor is taking. He's mobilizing state resources, at taxpayer expense, because of a bizarre conspiracy theory that has some of Texas's more colorful citizens in its grip.

It's really hard to keep people from believing outlandish things. But you don't have to indulge them. And that's what so many Republicans do with the crazies on their side: They indulge them. Doing so doesn't reassure them or calm them down, it only convinces them that they were right all along and encourages them to believe the next crazy thing they hear.

So please, Republicans, next time you're tempted to say that extremism and fantastical thinking are just as prevalent and meaningful on the left as on the right, remember this.

The Baltimore Police Department's Extraordinary Explanation for Why Freddie Gray Is Dead

I can only imagine the kind of siege mentality that prevails within the Baltimore Police Department right now. Not only are the city's residents protesting daily (and on one night those protests turned violent), but reporters from around the country are now examining the force's less-than-stellar record when it comes to cases of abuse and brutality, and who knows what they'll find. There's little doubt that some time soon the city's leadership will demand investigations, commissions, or some kind of effort that could lead to serious reform of the department. At a time like this, it may be understandable if the police brass isn't quite thinking straight. Which would be one explanation for the story that they presented to The Washington Post:

A prisoner sharing a police transport van with Freddie Gray told investigators that he could hear Gray "banging against the walls" of the vehicle and believed that he "was intentionally trying to injure himself," according to a police document obtained by The Washington Post.

The prisoner, who is currently in jail, was separated from Gray by a metal partition and could not see him. His statement is contained in an application for a search warrant, which is sealed by the court. The Post was given the document under the condition that the prisoner not be named because the person who provided it feared for the inmate's safety.

The document, written by a Baltimore police investigator, offers the first glimpse of what might have happened inside the van. It is not clear whether any additional evidence backs up the prisoner's version, which is just one piece of a much larger probe.

I'm going to choose my words carefully here, because I have no direct evidence in this case to contradict this story. But ... do the Baltimore police actually expect anyone to believe this?

I suppose it's possible that Gray, overcome with anger at being arrested, could have slammed himself into the side of the van so hard as to sever his own spine. But when I say "possible," I mean that in the same sense that it's possible that I could jump off my roof, do a quintuple somersault in the air, then land, uninjured, in perfect balance perched on the radio antenna of my car, standing on my nose. You could probably come up with an explanation in which that event did not actually violate the laws of physics. So it's possible.

But it's also possible—and just a smidge more likely—that the cops used some of the means of persuasion at their disposal to convince this unnamed person to say he heard a bunch of banging in the back of the van. And it isn't as though we have to search too far to find a more likely explanation for what happened to Freddie Gray. As The Baltimore Sun reported, there have been multiple cases in recent years of the city's police inflicting "rough rides" on people in custody, tossing them in the back of a van without a seatbelt, then careening around the streets and stopping short so the prisoner is hurled through the compartment of the van. In at least two cases before Gray's, suspects subjected to a rough ride by Baltimore police sustained spinal injuries that left them paralyzed.  

If that's what happened to Gray, it wouldn't be surprising if Baltimore police thought they could get away with claiming that he did it to himself, no matter how implausible such an explanation is for the injuries that killed him. After all, it wouldn't be the first or even the thousandth time that cops claimed that injuries a prisoner sustained were actually self-inflicted. He fell down. He banged his head on the car door. He jumped into my fist. They might also look to the 2014 case in Louisiana of Victor White, who died after being shot while in police custody after being arrested for possessing marijuana.

Despite the fact that White was in the back of a squad car, with his hands cuffed behind his back, and had already been searched by police, they claimed that he had hidden a gun that police failed to find, took it out, and shot himself in the chest. While his hands were cuffed behind his back. What's so stunning about Victor White's case isn't just that the police would offer such a fantastical explanation for why he ended up dead, but that it worked: White's death was ruled a suicide.

If a police force elsewhere can tell that story in the case of a suspect who died in their custody and get away with it, why can't the Baltimore police say that Freddie Gray severed his own spine by slamming himself into the side of a van? After all, it's possible.

Photo of the Day, Ridiculous Overreaction Edition

That's Chris Davis of the Baltimore Orioles, hitting a home run in today's game against the Chicago White Sox before an empty Camden Yards. The game was held as scheduled, but fans were barred from watching it because of fears that rioters would storm the stadium and massacre everyone inside, or something like that.