Probably one of the hardest lessons for anyone to accept in a modern political climate is the idea that, sometimes, it's best to do nothing. There's this prevailing attitude that, whenever there's a problem, something must be done - that literally anything is better than inaction, or accepting the situation as it stands, if the situation is at all negative or imperfect in some ways. That inaction, at least political inaction, is tantamount to 'giving up'.
Americans are too fat? The government must do something! Ban sugary drinks!
Americans are too unhealthy? The government must do something! Smoking outlawed in additional areas!
Some Americans lack health insurance? Universal health care!
Single mothers? Government-sponsored health care! More welfare benefits!
And no matter how much hell is created by any of these things, no matter how many problems are made worse, no matter how many new problems are introduced, there's this attitude of 'Well, at least we did SOMEthing!' It probably stems from the idea that it doesn't really matter what the results of your actions were so long as your heart was in the right place and you just DID something. You cared and you tried. Therefore, no matter what, you were a good person.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that a given person's actions should be judged in context - that if an outcome is less than ideal, but given the information they had at the time and their intended goal, on the whole we may be able to judge them as having made a reasonable choice.
I'm also sympathetic to the idea that people who support a policy on the grounds that, no matter what risks are associated with it, 'doing something is better than doing nothing', are not just incorrect. They are literally rotten people, who make the world worse for doing what they do.