There are many people who say they view any sort of paternalistic behavior with suspicion. But one obvious example of paternalistic behavior would be banning vaccines that people want to receive based on vague concerns of unproven harm. An even better example might be creating a site called realfood.gov, instructing the American people that only some kinds of food are "real" and you should ideally only eat "real" food.
So if someone says they oppose paternalism in public health and yet supports the Trump administration's public health efforts, I'm not sure how to avoid the conclusion that they're lying.
What’s the problem with realfood.gov? I just read the entire landing page and it seems reasonable to me
They’re pushing back against the parent comment’s suggestion that it’s a reaction to government “paternalism” in general and much closer to just “paternalism I don’t agree with”.
It seems reasonable to me too. It's good and proper for the government to tell people that certain foods are better than others, even when the bad foods are popular. Eating a pile of candy every day isn't a personal lifestyle choice we're required to respect and encourage; it's bad for people who do it and bad for society to have lots of people doing it.
What I don't see is how anyone could argue this isn't paternalism.