People from wealthy or upper-middle-class backgrounds are more likely to accept the premises of political guilt than are poor or working-class people, who are virtually immune to it. Moreover, since work is seen as an atonement device in Western cultures, young people are especially susceptible to political guilt, because they have not yet had the time to acquire the "work-and-worries history" that is common to the middle-aged. The educated are similarly vulnerable to guilt, because their education separates them from the world of manual labor.
These facts explain the customary transition from youthful radicalism to middle-aged conservatism. Those who regret their "privileges" will be drawn to egalitarian political ideologies such as socialism, because egalitarianism promises to remove the social inequality that is the source of their guilt. This is demonstrated by a lengthy examination of radicalism's history, showing that it was not the lower classes, but the educated and the well-to-do (including a large number of "rich kids"), who were the creators and leaders of socialism and Marxism. One other result of political guilt is actual self-hatred, which is shown by quoted examples--a phenomenon that is completely unique to the political left. Still, this book views this form of self-abasement as a philosophic phenomenon, not as an illness.
The book argues forcefully that only an absolute authority figure--the state--can promise to take on the responsibility to allocate resources and thereby relieve the discomfort of political guilt. Whether a government is socialist or a mere welfare state, its promise to provide for the poor relieves guilt-ridden people of the stigma of "privilege" that they feel they bear, by making it appear that work roles and possessions were granted by official permission, rather than being the result of chance or "privilege."
Much has been said about liberal media bias, but only in the context of political guilt can the reason for it be understood. Major media journalists tend to be extremely vulnerable to guilt for three reasons: (1) They are highly-paid; (2) The work they do is sinecurial, far removed from the humdrum world of ordinary labor; (3) Journalists report on events but do not participate in them. The result is that the overwhelming majority of journalists are liberals, since liberalism offers relief from guilt, by means of income redistribution, etc. For these reasons, no matter how much journalists complain about government threats to personal liberties and freedom of the press, they are steadfastly in favor of greater political authority, because submission to authority relieves guilt. Only big government can promise to reduce the embarrassing contrast between rich and poor and thus make it seem morally acceptable to be a well-paid journalist.
Media complaints about "anti-government" sentiments reveal why conservatives can finally discard their centuries-old fears about newspapers inciting the public to discontent and revolt. Today's media are encouraging the public to submit and obey. When journalists complain about government threats to freedom of the press, what they are criticizing is government interference with their right to tell the government that it is not interfering with everything enough to suit them. To most of today's journalists, freedom of the press seems to mean that the government should not have the authority to restrain them from advocating that the government should have more authority.
Also examined is the way guilt and blame are used in political appeals (i.e., one should feel guilty about having a comfortable life while others starve). This political tactic is refuted by exposing its illogic. Special emphasis is devoted to the contention that the philosophy of environmental determinism is merely an outcome of self-blame. Exonerating criminals for their actions because of their deprived backgrounds does not eliminate the blame; it expands the blame to include everyone, especially those who make such statements. As much as one might want to, it is impossible to blame the "environment of poverty" for crime. The distinctive and unfortunate features of this environment are such things as run-down buildings, peeling paint, empty wallets, infestations of rats, boarded-up storefronts, inadequate schools--and poor people. The poor people would be exonerated in any case, for the major application of environmental determinism is to claim that the poor are victims and not responsible for any anti-social acts they might commit. This leaves only animals and inanimate objects to consider. But only human beings can bear responsibility. To cite unreasoning beasts and inanimate objects as the responsible agents is the equivalent of the anthropomorphic idea that rocks and trees contain demons that cast spells on people. Environmental determinism has no choice but to blame groups of people for "creating" this environment of poverty or "allowing" it to continue to exist. Even if an identifiable group ("the rich") is said to be to blame, the implication is that because "we" have neither eliminated nor neutralized this group, we have "permitted" it to operate. Inevitably, the guilty party is "us."
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
