Now Krugman makes a very similar point about stimulus, and I expect people will think I have a double standard if I don't treat him with equal vigor (indeed - I've been told as much!).
The tough thing about the minimum wage is that there are excellent, standard economic arguments for thinking it will reduce employment and excellent, standard economic arguments for thinking it will not reduce employment. Maybe it's my empirical bias, but my reaction to that situation is to say "it's an empirical question".
The same goes for claims that people assert things because of their ideology and not because of science. There are excellent psychological arguments for why people would base their claims on their ideology. There are also excellent psychological arguments for why people would base their claims on evidence. And it gets even more messy if we align politically based on what we observe in the world.
So it's ultimately an empirical question (and a squishy, anecdotal empirical question at that).
I don't have time to go on at any more length than I have already - maybe later. Suffice it to say:
1. I think it has less to do with ideology than Krugman suggests, which is not to say that Krugman is wrong to say it has something to do with ideology.
2. Among economists, I think a lot more people hold their positions on stimulus because of ideology than hold their positions on the minimum wage because of ideology.
3. I absolutely don't think Krugman holds his views on stimulus because of his ideology. As far as other people, I've got more suspicions than evidence on where they fall.