Kathleen Parker April 1, 2014

H.L. Mencken gets a workout in election years when voters are reminded by pundits of the curmudgeon’s observationthat no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of theAmerican public.

Mean. But true?

If you’re a Democratic strategist, this seems to be the motto operandi. If you’re a Republican strategist, you’rethinking: Better dumb that down.

There now, if everyone is equally offended, we can proceed.

First, let’s dispense with Democrats, as voters are likely to do this November for countless reasons. Chief among them is the recent debut of theDemocratic “strategy” of hurling “pocketbook” legislation at Republicans that has no chance of passing.

This is not exactly aparadigm-shifting strategy. Minimum-wage debates are sort of likefuneral suits. You keep them handy for those glum times when respect for dying ideas must be paid. Giving strategists their due, the bills arecatchy, using as they do the poll-tested word “fairness” in their titles. (For some reason, I have an irresistible urge to enlist Phil Dunphy from “Modern Family” to say: “Geniuses.”)

The minimum-wage campaign is obviously an effort to bestir theDemocratic base to turn out at the polls, where Republicans tend to show up in greater numbers during midterm elections. But Democrats can’tforce votes in the Republican-controlled House, so this “strategy” ismainly something to talk about. At best, they get to reiterate thefamiliar trope that the GOP is the heartless, greedy, obstructionistParty of No.

Even if House Speaker John Boehner ignores theminimum wage, which he will, the consequences of inaction fall at hisfeet, not at any individual congressman’s. Thus, it may not hurt thegeneric GOP brand as much as Democrats hope. Also, even if aminimum-wage bill is passed by the Senate in the next few days, whocares? Republicans really have only one vulnerable senator up forreelection this year, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, so, theoretically, the political benefit is more a positive forDemocrats who get to vote for it than it is a negative for Republicans.

In the meantime, Republicans benefit from a time of record distrust ofgovernment, even though, irony observed, they have earned their ownshare. But being viewed as obstructionist on more government spendingand economic tinkering may not be such a bad thing.

As for seeming uncaring, this is harder to shed if only because supporting a wageincrease seems like such a decent idea. Which it is — in times ofeconomic stability. It is not such a great idea when viewed in thecontext of broader economic implications and the probability that raising wages will do more harm than good. For sure, raising wages won’t create jobs and, more likely,would cost jobs for the very population we all want to help. Low-wageearners usually lack job skills, which won’t be acquired in theunemployment line. It also makes little sense to apply one national wage when costs of living are so diverse across states.

Again, none of this matters. The wage increase won’t go through. Democrats know it.Republicans know it. The only people who may not know it are the deadand busy. Thus, this is much ado about nothing . . . for everything.

If Democrats can make Republicans look nasty enough, maybe a few moresingle women, low-income workers and minorities will turn out inNovember. That’s not nothing. If Republicans prevail, after all, theObama administration is finished. That’s everything. So the stakes arehigh even if the strategy seems not so lofty.

Mostly theDemocratic campaign agenda reflects desperation: If all you can do isattack your opponent, chances are you have nothing much to sell. Pollafter poll shows Americans aren’t buying what the Democratic Party is selling.

Strategy, meanwhile, cuts both ways.

Boehner also can force votes on vulnerable House Democrats — jobs votes such as the Keystone XL pipeline that squeeze Democrats between their unionbase and environmentalists. And then there’s the gift that keeps ongiving, Obamacare, not to mention the economy, record debt, higher taxes and dubious leadership in foreign affairs.

Now where was I?

Oh, yes, fairness. To wit: It is highly probable that Mencken, who referred to the South as the “Sahara of the Bozart” and pilloried rural Christians as “ignoramuses” during the 1925 Scopes trial, would have little good to say about today’s GOP, for which the South is Ground Zero.

Then again, he rarely said anything nice about anyone.

Read more from Kathleen Parker’s archive, follow her on Twitter or find her on Facebook.