I don’t understand where you get the idea that elite liberals feel personally extremely guilty for their own sins, and that this is the source of their inordinate anger and hatred against theists. There are many elite liberals who in their personal lives are responsible, decent, caring people living orderly and productive lives. Many of them are faithfully married and devoted to their families. Your portrayal of them as particularly bad sinners, and your theory that their hatred of theists comes from the fact that they, the liberal atheists, are particularly bad sinners and covering up an intense feeling of guilt, seem off the mark to me.
This got me thinking, so I tried to work it out a bit more carefully.
First, evil is any defect of a being’s expression of its nature. Evil thus includes any defect of any kind. In particular it includes all defects of righteousness, all sins. Some such defects are worse than others, but all are evils.
The more generally righteous a person is, the more apparent to him his remaining defects will be. There is a very concrete analogy from bodybuilding. When a bodybuilder is close to his target percentage of body fat, close to the way, e.g., he wants his abs to be defined, the tiniest gain of fat will be glaringly obvious to him (though probably not to anyone else). A fat man, even if he was paying attention and trying to lose weight, would not even begin to notice such a small variation in his body fat. Certainly he would not berate himself over it, as the bodybuilder does, nor would he kill himself in the gym the next day to get rid of the defect. Likewise a pianist who had practiced a piece for many hundreds of hours would notice a tiny defect in his performance that even other master pianists would not.
So likewise for those advanced in righteousness and sanctity. No one is more convinced of his utter, loathsome sinfulness than the great saint.
Thus a man like, say, Mitt Romney, living a truly virtuous life, and outwardly quite successful in maintaining extremely high levels of personal rectitude, is probably acutely aware of his remaining shortcomings. Such people tend to really beat themselves up if they over-indulge in drink or food, or otherwise pass the bounds of moderation. That’s how they stay so trim. And a liberal, living a righteous life – which is to say, a conservative life – like Romney’s (faithful husband, loving and attentive father, honest businessman, good churchman, magnanimous in his charitable works, etc.) would feel strongly that, e.g., infidelity is a great evil. He would react with horror to the suggestion that he himself commit adultery and divorce his wife. But then, this would mean that he would be perfectly aware, somewhere in himself – in his “guts,” as I put it – that his avowed liberal ostensible tolerance of adultery and easy divorce is at odds with his deep conviction that adultery and divorce are abhorrent. He would be aware at some level that his liberal moral beliefs were false, and that in espousing them publicly he was, not only lying, but advocating and promoting evil.
And I think a lot of liberals find themselves in this predicament. As I have said many times, the liberal is at war with his own body. He is at war with his own nature.
A righteous man cannot feel comfortable with his lies. They must be to him a source of torment. Oh, he may paper the torment over, distract himself from it with busyness or supererogatory acts of charity – organizing a charity ball or something, to save the whales or whatever, and assuage his guilt – but none of that really works. He knows at some level that in promoting gay marriage, or whatever, he is betraying his own deepest convictions. If for whatever reason – whatever selfish reason – he is unwilling to let go of his liberalism and be faithful to himself (perhaps because he fears social ostracism), he is bound to remain in this state of profound, albeit perhaps obscure, moral dissonance.
Now, internal dissonance and conflict in human beings is called “anxiety.” It is the lowest grade of fear. The more the dissonance is amplified, the greater the fear. And as the righteous liberal goes through life, the dissonance cannot but increase steadily. He’ll use up more and more of his neurological and moral resources managing the conflicts between his true, conservative principles and his ostensible, liberal principles. He’ll have to keep track of more and more unprincipled exceptions, the way a liar must keep track of more and more lies. At some point, most righteous liberals therefore eventually have a breakthrough – or a breakdown – and emerge as conservatives, the way David Mamet did. Those who do not, must double down on their liberal wager. Their doubling down consists in a redoubled intellectual and political commitment to moral nihilism, and libertinism. They are the ones who get really angry at conservatives and Christians.
Most righteous liberals are not thoughtful. The more thoughtful they are, the sooner they either suffer the breakthrough to conservatism, or double down on their liberalism. So, it’s the thoughtful liberals that are often angry.
Provided, of course, that they turn the gaze of their deliberation upon politics at all. There are all sorts of liberals who are very bright, very thoughtful – scientists, for example, or IT professionals – but who have not deliberated upon their liberalism. They’ve attended to other things. Thus while their positions on, say, the interpretation of quantum mechanics may be quite sophisticated, their liberalism is thoughtless.