From Paul Krugman’s latest column:

And who can honestly deny that race is a major reason America treats its poor more harshly than any other advanced country? To put it crudely: a middle-class European, thinking about the poor, says to himself, "There but for the grace of God go I." A middle-class American is all too likely to think, perhaps without admitting it to himself, "Why should I be taxed to support those people?"

“America treats its poor more harshly” in Krugmanspeak means, of course, that the welfare state gives away slightly fewer goods and services than in Europe. Never mind that the US economy offers more upward mobility and freer immigration. Never mind the greater support for fraternal organizations and charities that respectively help the working and non-working poor, regardless of race.

A middle-class American is indeed likely to think “Why should I be taxed to support those people who don’t support themselves?,” even while he makes out a check to the Red Cross. He might also think “How wasteful is government bureaucracy?” and “How is it doing the poor a favor to create a culture of welfare-state dependency?”. But what does any of that have to do with race?

We have here another example of Krugman’s tendency, aptly noted by Arnold Kling, to skip making arguments about “the consequences of policies”, and instead attack “the alleged motives of individuals who advocate policies”. Krugman’s tactic, in Kling’s words, is to “deny the legitimacy of one's opponents to even state their case. [Such] arguments do not give rise to constructive discussion. They are almost impossible to test empirically.”

In this case, Krugman might have offered empirical evidence to back his racial hypothesis, but he didn’t even try. Is there any? For example, are welfare programs more generous in cities and states (say, West Virginia) where the poor population is whiter? I honestly doubt it, but I could be wrong.