Professor Palma seems to suggest (certainly in his article) that there
should be (must be) laudatory work done on contemporary mainstream
economics.  Just because contemporary mainstream economics dominates, it
does not necessarily mean that it is impervious to criticism or that it
is coherent--just because it exists does not make it right, good, or
reasonable.  If laudatory work is desired then Professor Palma needs to
find/support/train/incentivize economists to do it.  However, I think it
may be somewhat difficult to write the desired laudatory histories of
contemporary mainstream economics and still retain the critical
faculties HET economist bring to their trade.  If the price of
acceptance by mainstream economists is speaking their language and
writing favorable histories, then it is a price too high for HET
economists to accept.

Fred Lee