A couple of weeks ago I discussed a remarkable criticism of ideological orthodoxy — the virtual absence of conservatives — among social psychologists (and in some respects an even more remarkable appreciation in the New York Times).
The ideologically orthodox Paul Krugman was, predictably, not impressed by the criticism, and he was especially critical of the implied comparison of the underrepresentation of conservatives to the underrepresentation of blacks, calling that “a really, really bad analogy.”
Mark Bauerlein has some perceptive comments about Krugman here — you should read it — and I added the following comment to his piece:
Here’s another point worth noting. When Krugman explains that one of the reasons ideology is not like race is that “Ideologies have a real effect on overall life outlook…,” he is asserting that race has no such effect. But if it doesn’t, how does race-based preferential treatment produce any of the “diversity” that is used to justify the discrimination against unpreferred races and minorities that it requires?
Krugman, the ball’s in your court.
