Bret Stephens says that even William F. Buckley would have supported increasing the size and power of the state to protect the public from dangerous diseases. He’s probably right; but what, you ask, distinguishes the virus from climate change? Why isn’t it also appropriate to expand the state to protect the public from fires, monster hurricanes, and the like?
I suspect the difference, in the eyes of so-called “conservatives,” is that the battle against climate change has no obvious end point, so the expansion of the state is more or less permanent. Do you find that line of reasoning persuasive? Me, neither.