My thinking is that if the government is competent, the entire conservative "small government" ideology is proven false and people will want MORE government instead, not less.
Anecdotal example - I received the J&J vaccine through a state-run mass vaccination site. Almost as soon as the J&J booster became available, the state department of health called me to help me setup my booster appointment.
Way to go MD Dept of Health!
That’s really what the argument should be about, competent and efficient government vs incompetent and wasteful government.
A good policy is one that achieves what it sets out to accomplish. A bad policy is one that either doesn’t accomplish its goals, or makes the matter worse.
For example; if the problem that needs addressing is homelessness and the solution is to put fines and restrictions in place to stop homeless camps from being setup or to keep homeless from shitting on the sidewalk, or sleeping on public property. If the results of these fines/restrictions don’t make the homeless go away and costs X amount of dollars, then that’s bad policy.
Now if we take that same issue but instead create temporary housing and assistance programs and that reduces the amount of homeless camps, shitting on sidewalks, and sleeping on public property, but doesn’t reduce homelessness itself and costs X-Y amount of dollars then that’s good but inefficient policy. It may be cheaper but it didn’t solve the problem.
However, if we tackle that same issue but instead treat each homeless person as an individual and create a plan to help them as an individual and that results in zero homeless but it costs X+Y, then not only is that a good policy but it’s also an efficient one as the problem has been solved.
To put it another way, we could spend trillions of dollars fighting an enemy with a large army and military equipment or we can fight that same enemy for millions of dollars by spreading propaganda in their country and letting the enemy self implode. (Guess which one we typically prefer)