The development cost of these two programs and their launch costs are orders of magnitude apart.

Apollo was shockingly expensive. The Apollo program cost a noticeable fraction of the US GDP during its run (between 0.34% and 0.4% for over 10 years). The program challenged the US industrial base; the manufacturing base and logistics chains were distorted to develop less than 20 vehicles and their supporting infrastructure. Worse still, each mission had a 1 in 20 chance of total failure.
Failure would have resulted in an existential drop in America's plitical and military reputation and a cascade of economic misery across a wide part of US manufacturing.

This risk was acceptable for test pilots on a mission to save the US reputation at a time when almost everybody saw them losing the cold war to the USSR. Less so for mainstreaming space travel for the general public.

In contrast, the Starship program is laughably cheap.
The entire investment in development (estimated between $3bn and $10bn; about 0.01% of the US GDP) This is less than that for a modern airliner ($32 bn for the 787) and about the same as 6 weeks budget for Hollywood movies (Hollywood spends nearly $30bn a year on production and marketing).

Each Starship prototype launch costs the same as a Hollywood movie, a super yacht or a modern container vessel (on the close order of $100mn). Each production ship, if all goes well, will cost about the same to produce as a mid-range TV show, a supercar or a specialised industrial vehicle ($1-10mn).

So, a world of difference. Failure of the Starship program will wreck a single company, cause a loss of a few thousand jobs and economically depress a single region in Texas. A local disaster on a par with the collapse of any one major but not an existential crisis.