1) Only some politicians ran strongly on anti-mandate platforms - e.g. Gov DeSantis - and he won big.
2) Many people who abided by harmful mandates may still believe - and want to believe - that these actions had some necessary purpose.
3) Democrats largely ended mandates in March 2022 with changed CDC recommendations and reduced media coverage.
7-8 months might have been enough time for many voters to no longer focus on mandates.
I do think voters prefer freedom over mandates, and as more time passes that might become more evident. But reaction to mandates did not play a major role nationwide in this election.
Due to the fact that most R leaders went along with the mandates there were very few who could campaign on being against them. Even R's in states where D's went full authoritarian didn't put up much of a stink. They didn't want the mandates as badly, or as long as D's. But most R leaders weren't philosophically opposed to mandates, believed they had merit, though not to excess, and were never really confronted by R voters to be more vocal in their opposition. CRT in schools and transinsanity were the focal points of the campaigns, not the mandates.
Which says as much about R's as it does about D's: both parties support authoritarian governance. Their differences are just a matter of degree or two. Which is a problem for individual liberty and freedom constitutional supporters. There's a reason that the terms bitter-clinger and deplorables were never reacted to by R's in power: they believe the same thing about flyover country where people bitterly cling to their God and guns and make up a basket full of deplorables who will be left behind on the ashheap of history. Yes, most R leaders believe that about their own base.
No R leader made a strong defense of the virtue of American freedom and liberty between Reagan and Trump. Not one. Even capitalism has no defenders left in the party leadership. Romney, the successful venture capitalist had no defense of free markets during Occupy anticapitalist demonstrations. The man had an opportunity to educate and describe how wonderful capitalism has improved the human condition in his presidential run. Instead, he aplogized for it and hid from it.
Those who attain leadership positions in the R party are bankrupt in traditional American values, capable of only offering up slogans during elections campaigns, but empty, vacuous vessels who have no core values that align with individual liberty, freedom, free markets. They wish to rule others, just as D's do. They are weak rulers. Not strong leaders. We suffer weak men (and women) in positions of power.
Which is why they didn't campaign on it. Another missed opportunity to educate and describe how wonderful individual liberty and freedom are even in crisis, when many minds working towards a solution from many different angles can help find the best path forward for others to copy. Not from one preordained central plan that is incapable of making adjustments so it makes mistake after mistake after mistake over and over and over and turn a minor crisis into a catastrophe. Which is what authoritarian rulers do.
This is what I saw as well. Here in Georgia, Kemp, our governor did not mandate masks or the vaccine, but he certainly never spoke out against it. He went on tour around Georgia showing proper mask etiquette.
About that "proper mask etiquette," I rather prefer the European Court's ruling on proper mask etiquette less than six months before they became mandatory - they were banned in public places, like public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions. For security, equality and the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing. Masked faces deemed "incompatible" with the rule of law. To my sensibilities, and the sensibilities of lawmakers and judges right up until August, 2019. The rationale stands, even in a pandemic. Especially in a pandemic.
2014
"Judges at the European court of human rights (ECHR) have upheld France's burqa ban, accepting Paris's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live together".
The law, introduced in 2010, makes it illegal for anyone to cover their face in a public place...the law was not aimed at the burqa or veil but any covering of the face in a public place...
...The European judges decided...that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities.
Isabelle Niedlispacher, representing the Belgian government, which introduced a similar ban in 2011 and which was party to the French defence, declared both the burqa and niqab "incompatible" with the rule of law.
Aside from questions of security and equality, she added: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing."
The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate", Niedlispacher added."
2019 - Ruling just months before masks became mandatory.:
"On August 1, 2019, the “Act Partially Prohibiting Face-Covering Clothing,”also known as the “Burqa Ban,” entered into force in the Netherlands. The Act prohibits the wearing of clothing that completely or partially conceals the face in spaces where people are expected to communicate with each other. Thus, face-covering clothing is banned on public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions, but is still allowed in such public spaces as on train platforms. The ban applies to burqas, niqabs, full-face helmets, balaclavas, and masks, but not to headscarves."
How do we know though? The only way I would know for sure is if I did a country wide poll asking if they mattered. I don't trust the election process, I certainly don't trust the media or any other institution. I would want a couple of third party sources to do the polling on both sides of the issue..those that liked mandates and those that did not, agree on asking the same question, and see what the polls would say.
I can't tell you how many times the media tells people how they should feel about something. Usually it is a poll, and consensus is the assertion. "55% of people polled think that Biden is a..." Sorry, but I don't trust in those polls, and they sound like the media is trying to manipulate me using the bandwagon logical fallacy.
But do we know this for sure? And maybe that too is an indicator how far things have fallen. If we can’t trust the election results and make determinations based on them.
I feel the same way. 3 Points:
1) Only some politicians ran strongly on anti-mandate platforms - e.g. Gov DeSantis - and he won big.
2) Many people who abided by harmful mandates may still believe - and want to believe - that these actions had some necessary purpose.
3) Democrats largely ended mandates in March 2022 with changed CDC recommendations and reduced media coverage.
7-8 months might have been enough time for many voters to no longer focus on mandates.
I do think voters prefer freedom over mandates, and as more time passes that might become more evident. But reaction to mandates did not play a major role nationwide in this election.
Due to the fact that most R leaders went along with the mandates there were very few who could campaign on being against them. Even R's in states where D's went full authoritarian didn't put up much of a stink. They didn't want the mandates as badly, or as long as D's. But most R leaders weren't philosophically opposed to mandates, believed they had merit, though not to excess, and were never really confronted by R voters to be more vocal in their opposition. CRT in schools and transinsanity were the focal points of the campaigns, not the mandates.
Which says as much about R's as it does about D's: both parties support authoritarian governance. Their differences are just a matter of degree or two. Which is a problem for individual liberty and freedom constitutional supporters. There's a reason that the terms bitter-clinger and deplorables were never reacted to by R's in power: they believe the same thing about flyover country where people bitterly cling to their God and guns and make up a basket full of deplorables who will be left behind on the ashheap of history. Yes, most R leaders believe that about their own base.
No R leader made a strong defense of the virtue of American freedom and liberty between Reagan and Trump. Not one. Even capitalism has no defenders left in the party leadership. Romney, the successful venture capitalist had no defense of free markets during Occupy anticapitalist demonstrations. The man had an opportunity to educate and describe how wonderful capitalism has improved the human condition in his presidential run. Instead, he aplogized for it and hid from it.
Those who attain leadership positions in the R party are bankrupt in traditional American values, capable of only offering up slogans during elections campaigns, but empty, vacuous vessels who have no core values that align with individual liberty, freedom, free markets. They wish to rule others, just as D's do. They are weak rulers. Not strong leaders. We suffer weak men (and women) in positions of power.
Which is why they didn't campaign on it. Another missed opportunity to educate and describe how wonderful individual liberty and freedom are even in crisis, when many minds working towards a solution from many different angles can help find the best path forward for others to copy. Not from one preordained central plan that is incapable of making adjustments so it makes mistake after mistake after mistake over and over and over and turn a minor crisis into a catastrophe. Which is what authoritarian rulers do.
This is what I saw as well. Here in Georgia, Kemp, our governor did not mandate masks or the vaccine, but he certainly never spoke out against it. He went on tour around Georgia showing proper mask etiquette.
About that "proper mask etiquette," I rather prefer the European Court's ruling on proper mask etiquette less than six months before they became mandatory - they were banned in public places, like public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions. For security, equality and the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing. Masked faces deemed "incompatible" with the rule of law. To my sensibilities, and the sensibilities of lawmakers and judges right up until August, 2019. The rationale stands, even in a pandemic. Especially in a pandemic.
2014
"Judges at the European court of human rights (ECHR) have upheld France's burqa ban, accepting Paris's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live together".
The law, introduced in 2010, makes it illegal for anyone to cover their face in a public place...the law was not aimed at the burqa or veil but any covering of the face in a public place...
...The European judges decided...that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities.
Isabelle Niedlispacher, representing the Belgian government, which introduced a similar ban in 2011 and which was party to the French defence, declared both the burqa and niqab "incompatible" with the rule of law.
Aside from questions of security and equality, she added: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing."
The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate", Niedlispacher added."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court
2019 - Ruling just months before masks became mandatory.:
"On August 1, 2019, the “Act Partially Prohibiting Face-Covering Clothing,”also known as the “Burqa Ban,” entered into force in the Netherlands. The Act prohibits the wearing of clothing that completely or partially conceals the face in spaces where people are expected to communicate with each other. Thus, face-covering clothing is banned on public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions, but is still allowed in such public spaces as on train platforms. The ban applies to burqas, niqabs, full-face helmets, balaclavas, and masks, but not to headscarves."
https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2019-08-27/netherlands-burqa-ban-enters-into-force/
The Courts were right pre-pandemic. The Science (TM) of the pandemic is wrong.
How do we know though? The only way I would know for sure is if I did a country wide poll asking if they mattered. I don't trust the election process, I certainly don't trust the media or any other institution. I would want a couple of third party sources to do the polling on both sides of the issue..those that liked mandates and those that did not, agree on asking the same question, and see what the polls would say.
I can't tell you how many times the media tells people how they should feel about something. Usually it is a poll, and consensus is the assertion. "55% of people polled think that Biden is a..." Sorry, but I don't trust in those polls, and they sound like the media is trying to manipulate me using the bandwagon logical fallacy.
The media is so passé.
I threw my television out 20 years ago and never regretted it for a second. B-O-R-I-N-G…
“But the reaction to mandates did not play a major role nationwide in this election.”
That should tell you how far as a supposedly free, constitutional republic WE have fallen.
No one should be turning their backs on these psychopaths.
But do we know this for sure? And maybe that too is an indicator how far things have fallen. If we can’t trust the election results and make determinations based on them.
The USA is gone. If it comes back, it will need a total overhaul/“revolution”. It’s too far gone.