Sailer asks: “Why do Republicans hate thinking about race and IQ, too?”
Whatever the answer, it needs to explain why Republicans hated thinking about race and IQ 50 years ago:
To expose liberal dishonesty as regards the Negro was both a graphic and expedient way to explode all the fallacies based on the equalitarian ideology, yet conservatives concentrated instead on economic and constitutional questions which, at a time of unprecedented prosperity, had comparatively little appeal to the man in the street.
In fact, few of the arguments of the conservatives had much validity except in terms of the correct answer to the innate-equality dogma. If all races were innately equal, then of course our social organization, both nationally and on the world scene, was full of flaws. If they were not, then the whole problem changed and conservative policies took on new meaning. Thus in refusing to challenge the dogma, conservatives were fencing on a scaffold while liberals laughed as they watched the trap door open. It became quite appropriate to refer to the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the liberals’ kept opposition. Their members were condemned in advance, set up to be ridiculed and extinguished, amid the scorn and self-satisfaction of the left. Carleton Putnam, 1967. Race and Reality.
The real question is: how did liberals establish the innate-equality dogma? How did they establish racial egalitarianism (and white iniquity) as the moral and empirical default position and shift the burden of justification and proof onto those who would argue otherwise? A passage from Gottfredson’s 1994 piece, “Egalitarian Fiction and Collective Fraud,” comes to mind when I think about this question:
Social scientists had already begun subordinating scientific norms to political preferences and creating much of our current pseudo-reality on race by the mid-60s. Sociologist Eleanor Wolf, in a 1972 article in Race, for example, detailed her distress at how fellow social scientists were misusing research data to support particular positions on civil rights policy: presenting inconclusive data as if it were decisive; lacking candor about “touchy” subjects (such as the undesirable behaviors of lower class students); blurring or shaping definitions (segregation, discrimination, racism) to suit “propagandistic” purposes: making exaggerated claims about the success of favored policies (compensatory education and school integration) while minimizing or ignoring contrary evidence. As a result, social science and social policy are now dominated by the theory that discrimination accounts for all racial disparities in achievement and well-being.
Eleanor Wolf, of course, puts it a little different: “Our most outstanding contribution to this movement may have been that of depriving its opponents of any claims to intellectual respectability.” So there you have it. Liberals dominated academia; they made racial inegalitarianism unrespectable; Liberals still dominate academia; they try their best to keep racial inegalitarianism from gaining respectability; and here we are — issue unresolved.