Schwartz gets in some good licks, some of which leave a mark:
Do these values consist of complaining about the Government spending more than they make while taking millions in government subsidies or gladly taking much more from the Federal Government than we pay in while complaining about government pork? Is it that we value having some of the lowest wages in the country to the point where some consider a Walmart greeter to be a “good paying” job? Or maybe South Dakota values include railing against a state income tax while accepting far more injurious to the middle class government revenue streams that include sales taxes on food and video lottery? Or just maybe they are making it so that credit card companies can setup shop in our fine state and allow them to charge whatever interest rates they want to the people that can usually least afford it? Those South Dakota values?
But he's also got his own meaningless shorthand going. In his very first sentence he says that those who don't share his worldview are "wingnuts" and "fungelicals." The latter is an apparent contraction of "fundagelical" (editorial epithet for "fundamentalist-evangelical"), shortened so as to sound like "fungus" and dehumanize those he critiques. Not much of an improvement on citing nameless values.
Then, in a comment, one of his acolytes totes this lil' candle:
...every voter should be very wary of supporting any candidate who emphasizes values over issues, logic, history, and reason.
Dang right! So don't vote for people spouting "Hope and Change." Don't adopt historically discredited models of government-run economy. Don't rally young people to vote by having Hollywood celebrities tell them, "If you don't, rape will become legal!"
Schwartz makes some good points about some Republican inconsistensies and irrationalities. My quibble is that the same inconsistensies and irrationalaities permeate our politics. They aren't the property of any one group.
"And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?"