Similarly, just because the US' leadership is both absent and therefore ineffective in an area does not imply that were the US' leadership present, it would still be ineffective.
Certainly, per the parent comment, we have examples of the US' past leadership in this context leading to a very different outcome. We know that leadership was abdicated (and in fact, actively eviscerated) during the prior presidency.
Second, yes Trump accelerated some things, but deep changes that caused Trump more than they were caused by Trump have been having more effect on international relations far long. Don't forget all the same complaints about not funding the state department were made in the Bush years.
Trump is a bad, don't get me wrong, but this seems like trite hawk Democrat thinking to me. It's precisely the nature of the US-led order in recent years that free trade agreements, IP laws, etc. etc. were more easily done than tackling issues of high global importance like global warming and Covid.
I was also not saying that Trump was a solitary problem.
I was not even judging Trump in my post, or making any partisan claims.
I was pointing out that you're attacking a strawman in your original post (as well as the one above). The original claim was simply "US policy in the past helped prevent pandemics. Under the prior administration, that policy changed, and we got a pandemic".
In response, you talked about global warming and Hitler. So I tried to explain why the logical leaps you took did not make sense.
And they continue to say that. This isn't on Trump.
Even if a president wanted to tackle climate change, a border wall or a Babylon tower they would be unable to get anything done before their term is up. I’m not old enough to know how things felt before Bush, but it seems like Congress used to actually exercise its power in the past
Only Hitler could unite most the rest of the world, and only then because that was near the peak of colonialism so world power had never been so concentrated.