Which in many cases, is none at all. Elizabeth Stoker Bruening on complaints about style (boldface mine):
Which is another way of putting: discuss this as though it’s ordinary. Some people were upset about the Rand post [which argued that Rand and Christianity are fundamentally opposed], saying that the way in which it was written was too mean or too severe, too snarky, bitchy, un-funny; uniformly arguments of bad style. The good style, one concludes, would have all the opposite elements: detached or passionate in the genteel way of friends who debate in pubs; subtle, searching, uncertain, just one proposal among many. That’s the way people tend to like to read about positions in politics, because that style makes everything seem very ordinary. If we’re discussing Christian attachment to Rand in the way that we discuss things which have merit, which are part of the landscape of valid and legitimate opinions, then it’s perfectly fine that Christian politicians can claim both Jesus and Rand. In that case, the pro-Jesus+Pro-Rand crowd is part of the schema of the normal, a regular feature of the status quo. Nothing to see here, nothing to change.
But it’s madness… And I don’t think Christian Rand apologia is legitimate or valid, and I don’t want to write as though it might be among those things we can reasonably disagree about, and I don’t want anyone to see it as ordinary.
One great con the right pulled is ‘shifting the goalposts’: they successfully mainstreamed utter lunacy, whether it be creationism or supply-side economics. Ideas should be given the respect they deserve, and many deserve no respect at all.