Sure, people who nominally object to one thing are often really objecting to something else. But, in practical terms, if you can’t distinguish then you can’t refute. It ends up like Freudian psychology – suggestive but not substantive. This doesn’t really bring much value to the table.

For example, if the Other applies to race, why wouldn’t it apply to other social constructs such as politics? How do we know that pundits on the left aren’t criticizing tea parties out of disgust rather than indignation? More Allegation. Less Substance. (That should be a slogan somewhere…)

WRT tea parties, my guess would be that most of it can be attributed to angry people expressing themselves badly. I really don’t think comparisons to primates, Hitler, or socialism/fascism in this context are motivated by racism (Cf. GWB). Rather, angry, inarticulate people resort to our cultural repertoire of pejoratives and slurs. Insofar as racism is still part of the repertoire, this is where it enters the mix. Contextually, saying “Barack Hussein Obama” is probably the result of political anger finding a racist outlet rather than racist anger finding a political outlet.

WRT Prof. Nussbaum, “indignation” can also be reflexive – plenty of people are convinced that something violates their principles without being able to articulate how or why this is the case. If I understand the distinction, “indignation” can be inchoate but is ultimately capable of rational justification whereas “disgust” is based on primitive neurological responses (e.g. arachnophobia) which cannot be justified.