As previous posts in this space have argued, philosophy is alive and well in Canadian public life, if you know where to look.
And look you should, here, for the most thoughtful analysis of the reasons behind the federal Conservative government's recent decision to eliminate the mandatory long-form census,. Written by University of Ottawa political philosophy professor Paul Saurette, the piece serves as a very useful reminder of the ways in which philosophical ideas animate our public life, even when they're not explicit, and of the many different kinds of evidence that used in public decision making.
Saurette evokes the wisdom of Sherlock Holmes to slay much of the speculation surrounding the potential reasons behind the census decision, and instead points to the consistency of this move in light of how conservatively-minded people think about knowledge and ideas in public life.
To quote from the piece: "[Their's is a] theory of knowledge that assumes that the most reliable and trustworthy type of knowledge is the direct individual experience of "common people" - the lessons of which can be unproblematically universalized. In such a theory, the more numerical, general and statistical the analysis, the less trustworthy it is. For as we all know, our own eyes never lie, but numbers can say whatever they want them to say."
In this way, Saurette argues, the Conservative Party is engaging in wide outreach of a philosophical kind, communicating widely their suspicion of "stats and the pointy-headed, out-of-touch academics who analyze them."
These arguments remind me of a fascinating panel on the role of evidence in public policy (yes, I realize normal people don't normally ascribe the word "fascinating" to such a topic) hosted at McGill last spring. It featured three people with PhDs, followed by former Prime Minister Joe Clark. Clark argued that "evidence" includes not only research but also "instinct" - by which he meant an ability to triangulate hard evidence with the experiences and aspirations of people. "Social knowledge" or "experience" are other words that capture this sentiment.
In Clark's view, this should be done through Parliament, which is where, through MPs, citizens are meant connect to the government. He feared that the overload of work and travel, coupled with the dominance of "experts" makes it increasingly difficult for our MPs to maintain a connection with their constituents, squeezing out "instinct" and making Parliament and, by extension our government, less legitimate.
And now we may run the risk of losing the research part of evidence too. But again, let's look to philosophy to help make sense of it all. As Saurette points out that, with time, the census decision will have a deleterious influence on the ability of other governments, arms-length organizations and advocacy groups to present a case to the feds for greater activity in whatever area of interest they may have. Without the data, it'll be much harder to cultivate "non-conservative values and a public philosophy that acknowledges a role for government in addressing and reducing certain structural inequalities of society."
In short, this is not some crazy miscalculation by some party strategist, but instead a "profoundly ideologically and philosophically motivated skirmish initiated by people who are highly attuned to the importance of the battle of ideas and the politics of knowledge."
Read Saurette's full piece here.