"Diversity" has been a frequent mantra of liberals over the past 20 years or so, whether referring to racial quotas in college admission or biodiversity when choosing between the livelihood of an Oregon logger or the habitat of a snail darter. Liberals love diversity in theory, as long as it is demonstrably harmful to non-favored groups such as white males or Vietnamese law students or evil corporations.

However, when diversity plays out in real life, as when part of a population studies harder, works harder, takes risks, and thus ends up diversifying by growing more wealthy than another part of the population which eschews study, plots to avoid hard work, and invests no money. Then the liberal mindset, which is basically against inequality of outcomes, finds itself arrayed against diversity when it is not simply theoretical.

Liberals talk much about leveling the playing field, but then after the teams have played the game on the field, they don't like it one bit when one team scores more points than the other. The liberals then attempt to even the score, not just level the playing field. Sometimes, as in gym class or T-ball games, they even refuse to keep score.

While pretending to respect the individual, liberals strenuously oppose the results of individuality.

According to a recent article on the excessive happiness of conservatives versus liberals, one possible explanation advanced was that conservatives are just more accepting of inequality of outcomes. They aren't angry, sad, hostile, or outraged when one team scores more points. If someone studies harder, works harder, practices more, invests more time and energy and money, then conservatives aren't emotionally distraught when that person succeeds and grows wealthier as a result.

Liberals, on the other hand, are outraged at the concrete results of diversity. But they love it in theory. Sort of like hampering military efforts while supporting the troops, I guess...