Rob misses the main part of what liberal guilt is and what motivates liberal guilt and thus his argument fails utterly to persuade me. The "liberal guilt" that some of us mock is guilt felt for a crime you didn't commit. Rob takes like 1500 words to dance around and ultimately fail to answer a simple moral question:

To what extent are you guilty and therefore accountable for the crimes those who came before you?

People who feel "white guilt" (whatever that is) seem to believe the answer to this question is "a little" or maybe, "a lot." The answer for the rest of us is "not at all."

And to feel guilt implies accountability. This perhaps manifests, I suppose, as a duty to vote for Obama when you feel Hillary or McCain might be the better candidate.

There is a matter of degree... if you are in possession of a specific Picasso that your Nazi grandfather (did I just violate Godwin's rule?) stole from my Jewish (and gassed) grandfather, then I may indeed have a legitimate claim on that particular paining. But you don't have to feel guilty. And it doesn't mean you owe me deference or unspecified "reparations." And this goes double if you just happen to be German and I just happen to be Jewish and neither of our families was anywhere near WWII in Europe.

If my grandfather ate in a "whites only" diner, well he participated in a regrettable part of our history, but I owe the non-white community NOTHING for that. I am not accountable for that. I owe everyone respect and tolerance because it is their due as human beings. But special treatment because of transgressions committed by my ancestors against theirs? Forget it.

And if this makes me a sociopath, then I'm behaving myself way too much.

I dunno, I think the Italian government owes me for the conquests of the Roman Empire. They wouldn't be profiting from tourism if it weren't for all the Roman ruins built by Germanic slave labor.

Well done!

Rosenbaum isn't saying that we're all responsible for slavery and that everyone has a duty to vote for Obama because of it. The issue isn't whether anyone today actually is responsible or accountable for slavery. The issue is that, for whatever reason, a lot of people do feel guilty about slavery, or apartheid, or the third reich, or Zulu enslavement practices, or whatever might apply, but that (at least here) this sentiment is given NO space and is greeted with knee-jerk and smug contempt. I know you're going to say the problem is that people who do feel this guilt try to foist their guilt onto others, or that this guilt leads to poor decisions and misguided policies. Maybe. But pretend not, for a second. Why would there then have to be such intolerance for a sincerely felt emotion? To the point that people won't even believe that it is sincerely felt. That it must be affectation, and part of putting on liberal airs. Can't there be a space for those feelings, too? And why does any expression of such feelings engender such a shrill pavlovian response? As if you have to argue why you're justified in having a feeling as a prerequisite to expressing it. As if justifications had any part in what we feel.

"I know you're going to say the problem is that people who do feel this guilt try to foist their guilt onto others, or that this guilt leads to poor decisions and misguided policies. Maybe. But pretend not, for a second."

I cannot "pretend not," herr Raptor. Well I could, but my fantasy life pathetic as it is is confined to World of Warcraft.

I'm not here to say you are or are not entitled to a feeling. Usually that is none of my business. It becomes very much my business however when you advocate or vote on the basis of that guilty feeling, however sincerely felt. In that case you seek to use the coercive power of the state to produce a policy or outcome that I don't like, one that most likely makes me poorer and/or less free whatever else it does.

I am not sure how useful or not guilt is in shaping good policy. I do believe though that while slavery was terrible in itself, its impact was far worse than simply demeaning other human beings and treating them like property. Slavery goes hand in hand with racism. Many times in the West these two went hand in hand with the theft of knowledge and resources from the oppressed and taking credit for it. It also involved wiping the contribution of the oppressed out of the history books, which is why minorities have to struggle to reclaim knowledge of themselves to understand where they stand in the world. This doesn't just apply to the US by the way, it is all over the world. I know this cause I have seen it myself. Like I said before, guilt may not be useful in approaching any decision, let alone a political one. But do not underestimate the impact that slavery has had on American society. It may have happened centuries ago, your ancestors may or may not have been involved, it's not on your hands, but its impact (economically, socially culturally and otherwise) has pervaded every aspect of American society.

"It becomes very much my business however when you advocate or vote on the basis of that guilty feeling, however sincerely felt." -- moodyguppy

I think the author of the article explained it, to quote: "Liberal guilt" isn't a reason one must automatically support a black candidate, but that doesn't mean that liberal guilt—better defined as an awareness of the need to contend with, and overcome, a racist past—shouldn't be a factor in politics."

If people were advocating voting for Obama specifically to "ease our pain over racism in the past" - it would be a bit much - kind of like Gloria Steinem and others basically saying we should vote for Hillary specifically because she's a woman (these same people now pointing out how misogynistic we all are in spite of the fact that almost half of the people who have voted after them first candidates dropped out voted for Hillary).

A bit too much, in other words. (Oh, I already said that.)

The problem with author's claim is that he contradicts himself. While he tries to give a legitimate definition for liberal guilt it falls against the second title of his article, that it's okay to vote for Obama because of race. If you want to over come a racist past, you can't instantly do so by voting for a black man. You're better off by treating all people with respect and teaching you're children to do the same. I guess the problem with my suggestion, is that it takes more time and is more substantive.

Rosenbaum is not wholly incorrect to argue that we should not feel so ashamed for our "liberal guilt" (a term I have always heard modified as "white liberal guilt"). White liberal guilt over race extends not from some collective shame for the evil deeds of people who are not me. It extends from the fact that I know, as a white man, that even though I am not a racist, I still benefit from the structures of racism. This is especially true for me, as I live in Georgia. I do not endorse the inherent racism of my region, or my nation, for that matter, but I also often find it impossible, or unpleasantly difficult, to avoid the small benefits that come as a result of 400 years of national racism. I don't think the police should stop more black people for random questioning, but I'm not going to complain that I don't get stopped more. The same thought applies to me in relation to gender equality. I will never support women making less money than I do for equal work, but I will also never request that my salary be adjusted to 76 percent of its current level to express solidarity. I don't agree with the problems, and I will work as diligently as I can to address them, but white liberal guilt is born from the fact that I will not, and sometimes cannot, exist in total solidarity.

White liberal guilt, as an extension of this, deserves skewering because it places the needs and thoughts of the member of the oppressor back at the forefront of the situation. If I vote for Obama because I feel like that a black president will make major strides toward the ending of racism and towards the healing of a nation, then that is fine. I am identifying all people as human irrespective of race and acting in solidarity. But if I, in one moment, choose to identify as white and then vote for Obama because I want to help the people I choose to identify as black, then I have acted patronizingly. I have not chosen solidarity, but rather separation, and I have voted for Obama because I feel guilty about that separation. I am trying to alleviate my guilt over the very problem I have created. It becomes a cycle.

The last thought is that it very likely does not matter what motivates me to do something. Concerns over motives are part of the problem with white liberal guilt to begin with.

Excellent post. Everyone should read it :-)