National Review's John Derbyshire tells black law students they are biologically inferior.
This is important politically because the National Review is often seen as the "reasonable" organ of the intellectual right, its writers and editors held in higher esteem, more capable of participation in pluralist discourse than, say, Glenn Beck or Michael Savage. And here is a leading writer and editor for NR throwing down a racialist gauntlet at a time when we are hurling condemnation at lowbrow conservatism like racist Tea Partiers and armed right-wing, white militias.
Derbyshire's position represents the position of the conservative intelligentsia. So, you have the intelligentsia of the movement preaching biologically determined racial hierarchy, and you have the conservative lumpen preparing to engage in racist violence, and you have a whole lot of righties in between denying the racism of their positions, denying their personal racism, while using code words and catering to white supremacists through their defenses of Confederate History celebrations and other coded rituals and rhetorics.
Will anyone step forward to articulate and defend a non-racist conservatism? I might think the Libertarians would be so inclined, but unless their iconic representatives (Bob Barr, Ron Paul, those guys) were willing to issue even stronger mea culpas repudiating their past associations--really explaining why they went there, and why they're no longer there--the moral credibility of such distancing will seem weak and opportunistic.
The right really does have a race problem. Which conservative politicians and commentators will risk the circular firing squad to denounce it?