But then COVID hit, and I’m fairly certain that having coordinated, science-based leadership in the highest levels of government would have spared us from quite a lot of suffering. So much for rooting for ineffectual.
Yeah, COVID has really emphasized for me (a recovering libertarian) how important it is to have functioning and competent government institutions (along with other social institutions).
The COVID response by the government further illiterates why libertarianism is correct.
Having an authoritarian government is not a solution to a pandemic, and it is sad that once again people are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for promised safety
Ofourse as the truism goes, you will lose both in that deal...
The cult of personality that has wrapped itself around the office of President of the United States is down right terrifying.
The US COVID response doesn't illustrate that any more than Soviet elections [1] illustrated that voting is a sham, which is to say it doesn't illustrate it at all. A particular bad implementation, especially one that was arguably sabotaged, doesn't disprove a concept. A laissez faire response to an epidemic is a bad one, and the US response has been pretty close to that in many areas.
Also Do you believe COVID concerns should out weigh all other things including Economics, and even other health conditions (for example people stopped getting screenings for almost all other health conditions during this time. Cardiologists have come out extremely worried about the drop off in their health segments)
Finally Do you believe all rights can be suspended provided the executive of the government declares a state of emergency? What if any limits on this declaration should there be or this the declaration the sole purview of the executive
> Finally Do you believe all rights can be suspended provided the executive of the government declares a state of emergency? What if any limits on this declaration should there be or this the declaration the sole purview of the executive
Of course not, but you're engaging in over-the-top all-or-nothing hyperbole, even if you don't realize it, so your question isn't reasonable.
Libertarianism seems far more reasonable than it actually is when you mainly compare it to straw men.
I don't disagree, but I also see how its easy to see how other voters don't agree: E.g. look at the performance of other nations. You can make comparisons where the US doesn't look bad (or even looks good) depending on what comparisons you make and what time windows you choose.
Similarly, if you emphasize the importance of the errors of science-driven bodies, the amount of flip-flopping in expert advice (e.g. over masks), or the specific state responses in states that have local administrations more like what we would have hoped for, you could make an argument that it would not have made that much difference. Maybe not a correct argument, but at least one where reasonable and informed people could have a debate over it.
There is a lot of noise in pandemic impact, a lot of noise in how people perceive pandemic impact, and there hasn't been much time to reach robust scientific conclusions on the impact of different policies. I wouldn't argue that differences between policies aren't real, but just that they're (currently) easily spun or discounted.
There is, also, I think a good argument to be made to cautious about science based leadership in general. The tremendous power of science is that it gives you the power to defy tradition, popular will, and even common sense and make the world dramatically better, because its predictions were right. But when science is wrong, it can also be used to defy reason and common sense and bring tremendously bad results. E.g. there has been more than one genocide carried out in the name of "science". Rejecting science is not the answer, but nor is blindly following whatever is passing for science in your civilization at any moment. :)
Keeping in mind that Biden hasn't been a senator since 2009, during his time in the senate he was dead center among senate Democrats in terms of liberal/conservative votes cast (i.e. both more liberal and more conservative than 50% of his fellow Democratic senators): https://voteview.com/person/14101/joseph-robinette-biden-jr . Of course as noted this was over a decade ago, and what passed for centrist back then might not today.
In case you're wondering how this metric pans out for the most recent Senate: https://voteview.com/congress/senate/115/text , which (according to this metric) lists the four most liberal senators (as shown by their senate votes) as, in order, Warren, Harris, Booker, and Sanders.
You can compare the financial reports on their website: https://www.state.gov/plans-performance-budget/agency-financ... and https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/perfrpt/index.htm
Kamala is very progressive in a way that's a huge liability in the general, but because she's a prosecutor she doesn't get as much credit as she should in the primary. And I think in that sense it can be a liability.
But especially given his age and how much focus there has been on suggesting (perhaps falsely) that his health isn't good, a lot more weight has been given to Harris.
Harris did poorly in the primaries and I think even her supporters should be able to see why many people find her to be an extremely undesirable pick (it's not exactly the right political climate to nominate a self-described "Top Cop", and even Biden has a fairly "law and order" voting history, compared to typical for democrats).
I know people who hate trump who claimed to have voted for him or just not voted, because they believe that electing Biden/Harris would create a substantial risk of either Harris becoming president or forcing the dems to nominate Harris in the next election (and thus excluding viable candidates that actually reflect their views)... and that for all the find wrong about Trump, he's at least substantially ineffectual.