At Least He Admits They (We?) Exist

I saw an interesting blog post by Gregory Mankiw, current econ professor at Harvard and chair of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors from 2003-2005. He writes one of the more commonly used intermediate macro textbooks, which he admits is hewn from the mainstream theory. He eschews the fact that one of the founders of the Post-Autistic Economics movements, which is basically the most cohesive heterodox economics movement in existence, criticized his textbook. He writes,

This is not the first time my text has been criticized for being biased. When President Bush appointed me to be CEA chair, some members of the political right opposed the nomination because my textbook was too Keynesian and not sufficiently sympathetic to their supply-side views. I suppose the symmetry in the attacks suggests I am getting things about right.

When I teach introductory economics, either in the classroom or in my textbook, I view myself as an ambassador for the economics profession. I try to represent the economic mainstream, not my personal political views. Some students may view the economic mainstream as right of center. That assessment is probably correct, at least as judged by the universe of college professors. But the job of an introductory course is to present, as honestly as possible, the consensus of the profession. If the typical economist is more market-friendly than the typical literature professor, then that point of view will likely be reflected in the leading textbooks.

I suppose this sort of hits upon what we already know. Not all economists teaching at universities are mainstream economists. However, mainstream economics will inevitably be taught because it is the consensus of the profession. What is encouraging about this post, at least to me, is that Mankiw is not utterly dismissive of PAE. Instead, he acknowledges that non-mainstream economists are out there and that there is not just one "economics" as some of the people at ND's department might have us believe. I'm not defending Mankiw; I've never read his textbook or any of his work. Obviously I think he would likely do well to be more open to ideas outside the mainstream. However, he does seem to have at least some intellectual flexibility. Thoughts?