Libertarian Populism, Neoliberal Rationality, and the Mandatory Long-form Census: Implications for Sociology

Abstract

This article argues the Canadian government’s decision in 2010 to eliminate the mandatory long-form census constitutes a mobilizing appeal to libertarian populism commensurate not only with neoliberal concepts of individualism, private property, and the role of the state, but also with a redefinition of what counts as valid argumentation and a legitimate basis for making knowledge claims. This rationale has implications for sociological research and theory, for the profession of sociology, and for a sociological vision of society.

Conservative Politics, Sacred Cows, and Sacrificial Lambs: The (Mis)Use of Evidence in Canada's Political and Penal Fields

“…In 2010, the Conservatives announced they were canceling the mandatory long‐form census. The long‐form had been a part of every census since 1971, sent to one‐fifth of Canadian households; the Conservatives replaced it with a strictly voluntary “national household survey.” The result was substantial uproar from “provincial governments, academic institutions and associations, voluntary organizations and churches, business, and professions” (Ramp and Harrison :274; see also Boyd ). Although the specific nature of their complaints varied, representatives of each spoke of the costs of losing valuable information about Canadians and the changing nature of Canadian society; of particular concern to many critics was that a nonrepresentative, “voluntary,” sample would not accurately reflect Canadian society at large.…”

“…While it is tempting to criticize the Harper government's decision to replace the mandatory long‐form census as being utterly illogical, irrational, and unsupported by scientific evidence, William Ramp and Trevor Harrison () argue that the desire to scrap the long‐form census was, in fact, based on logic. Namely, a logic grounded in neoliberal ideology and informed by libertarian populism.…”

“…Namely, a logic grounded in neoliberal ideology and informed by libertarian populism. Focusing on how the state used the long‐form decision and ensuing controversy to enact neoliberal ideas of private property, privacy, individualism, and the role of the state, Ramp and Harrison (:274) demonstrate that the Conservatives appealed to their voter base by conveying particular narratives about fairness, democracy, civil rights, and the claims of taxpayers, government agencies, and interest groups. Similarly, Michael Yeo () complicates academic and scientific critiques of the government's census decision by examining the normative assertions of the idealized relationship between policies and science in forming public policy, arguing: “In their zeal to defend recognition and respect for the rights of science in public policy decision‐making, critics sometimes failed to give due recognition to the essential dimension of values in public policy, and to the rights of politics as the proper locus of decision making for value issues” (pp.…”

Why do we still need a census? Views from the age of “truthiness” and the “death of evidence”

“…It may also need to draw in those who can engage with populist common sense by popularizing research that shows how qualitative indicators and methods foregrounding individual and group experiences can complement and enrich census‐based interpretations. Moreover, as Ramp and Harrison point out, academics need to make “common cause” across their various methodological tendencies and sub‐fields in order to contest the rise of even more extreme forms of libertarian populism that reject “ any rigorous form of social inquiry” (, 288).…”

“…Whether public policy reflects that reality is not a choice left to those in the academy, but producing and protecting the research itself is our choice and our moral obligation.” I thank one of the reviewers for highlighting this connection with Colbert's interjections. See also Ramp and Harrison (), as well as Amarasingam's () edited collection on the Colbert effect for a detailed analysis of the influence of “fake news” on the democratic process in the US.…”