The love that dare not speak its name?

Anyone interested in the concepts of shame and disgust should read Julian Sanchez’s interview with Martha Nussbaum:

Unlike anger, disgust does not provide the disgusted person with a set of reasons that can be used for the purposes of public argument and public persuasion. If my child has been murdered and I am angry at that, I can persuade you that you should share those reasons; if you do, you will come to share my outrage. But if someone happens to feel that gay men are disgusting, that person cannot offer any reasoning that will persuade someone to share that emotion; there is nothing that would make the dialogue a real piece of persuasion.
Reason: As a follow up, can you say something about how that cashes out into a critique of communitarian ideals?
Nussbaum: The prominent defenders of the appeal to disgust and shame in law have all been communitarians of one or another stripe ([Lord] Devlin, [Amitai] Etzioni, Kass), and this, I claim, is no accident. What their thought shares is the idea that society ought to have at its core a homogeneous group of people whose ways of living, of having sex, of looking and being, are defined as “normal.” People who deviate from that norm may then be stigmatized, and penalized by law, even if their conduct causes no harm. That was the core of Lord Devlin’s idea, and it is endorsed straightforwardly by Etzioni, and, in a rather different way, and in a narrower set of contexts, by Kass. My study of disgust and shame shows that these emotions threaten key values of a liberal society, especially equal respect for people and for their liberty. Disgust and shame are inherently hierarchical; they set up ranks and orders of human beings. They are also inherently connected with restrictions on liberty in areas of non-harmful conduct. For both of these reasons, I believe, anyone who cherishes the key democratic values of equality and liberty should be deeply suspicious of the appeal to those emotions in the context of law and public policy. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

I quite enjoyed her comparison of murder to homosexuality in this context, because I have long noticed that those who hate homosexuals tend to be more disgusted by homosexuality than by murder.
This, of course, is not only irrational, but it is against one’s self interests. To be more disgusted by non-harmful conduct than by harmful, dangerous conduct is to reverse not only moral proprieties, but common sense ones.
While I haven’t read her book, I was a bit disappponted that neither Ms. Nussbaum nor her interviewer discussed the emergent forms of shame and disgust which are often to be found on the left.
Cigarette smokers seem to have become the homosexuals of the 21st century. By that I mean they’re occupying the ecological niche the homosexuals once occupied in the popular imagination. They are forced to hide in dark corners, congregate in unpleasant places reserved for them, and even then, they are glared at, sneered at, assaulted on occasion, and made to feel that the world would be better off without them. In many communities, they are not allowed to smoke in public anywhere, even outside.
In some of the fashionable circles in which I run around, Republicans are also beginning to resemble homosexuals. They look ashamed of themselves and won’t speak up when their social betters belittle the stupid Bush, the Hitler Bush, the Osama Bush, lest they be ridiculed, ostracized, not invited back. I can often spot these people by their silence.
Varius reminded me of this not long ago when he said,

I’m reminded of the vitriolic conversations I avoided in college and still avoid at parties, with wide-eyed moonies proselytizing the politics of moral superiority. (I think I grew tired of being treated like a child molester because I don’t hate Republicans.)

Now, I am not saying that everyone should love Bush or Republicans. But I’ve been around long enough to know shame when I see it, and I suspect that there’s a sort of ecological niche for it in any society, country, or group of people. It may even be part of human nature; an illogical (and sometimes loathsome) part, but a part nonetheless.
It is natural enough for partisan ideologues to attempt to utilize shame and disgust as a weapon against their political opponents, and while I’ll object to it when I see it, there’s not much I can do to stop it.
It’s one thing when Republicans (or people who love Bush) are afraid to say so. What’s worse is the attempt to make people who love their country afraid to say so.
Here are Michael Moore’s thoughts about those who display the flag:

For too long now we have abandoned our flag to those who see it as a symbol of war and dominance, as a way to crush dissent at home. Flags are flying from the back of SUVs, rising high above car dealerships, plastering the windows of businesses and adorning paper bags from fast-food restaurants. But these flags are intended to send a message: “You’re either with us or you’re against us,” “Bring it on!” or “Watch what you say, watch what you do.” (Via James Lileks.)

Are SUV owners and small business owners really saying that? I don’t think so; rather, I think Moore is pissed because certain Americans are daring to display the flag in a shameless display of patriotism.
It’s not yet the love that dare not speak its name, but some people have been working on it:

Though plans call for four university music and song groups to perform at an evening vigil, not a single patriotic song will be sung, at the behest of organizers. Instead, songs of remembrance will be offered up. Also, to prevent the exclusion of those who don’t believe in the American Flag, there will be no tribute to the flag. “The flag has become a symbol of U.S. aggression towards other countries. It seems hostile,” [Berkeley Graduate Assembly President] Quindel said.

That was at a September 11, 2002 vigil at UC Berkeley.
A place where certain love dare not speak its name….
ANOTHER THOUGHT: That the left also utilizes disgust and shame as tactics ought to give pause to Leon Kass and others on the right who have claimed that repugnance is a form of “wisdom.” No doubt Michael Moore thinks his is!