When Politics Trumps Good Policy

Rejecting reason and evidence, populism seems to be guiding the Canadian government.

Does the death penalty reduce murder rates? Does sex education in schools produce higher or lower rates of teenage pregnancy? Do stiffer punishments for drug possession diminish rates of drug use?

On many public-policy questions such as these, we have answers – or can gather the evidence necessary to formulate answers. Governments that are so inclined can ground large portions of their policy programs not in opinion or ideology, but in science. (Yes, there is always the possibility of bad evidence or bad analysis. But a commitment to making decisions based on the best available evidence, combined with an acknowledgement that humans sometimes err, is different from a refusal to even aim for evidence-based decisions.)

---

Related: Because Scientific Advice Matters

---

Some governments choose to make decisions based on evidence even when the evidence runs contrary to majority opinion. For instance, when Canada ended the practice of capital punishment in 1976, a strong majority of the population still favoured the death penalty. (An Environics survey in 1979 found support at 77 per cent – that figure has since declined to a slim majority of 53 per cent.)

But not every government decision is made according to the best available evidence about what actually works: Sometimes, political incentives trump data, and leaders choose to cater to self-interest or perceived self-interest rather than follow expert data.

Today, for instance, governments across Canada are experimenting with forms of populism that reject evidence in favour of emotion (usually fear and anger) or opinion:

• Early in the campaign for the recent Ontario provincial election, Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak proposed forced labour for prisoners – a gesture that symbolized macho toughness more than it proposed an efficacious change to corrections practice.
• BC's New Democratic Party and flamboyant former premier Bill Vander Zalm have crusaded against the HST, despite evidence from other jurisdictions that it does not harm consumers or the economy.
• Toronto Mayor Rob Ford began axing planned city initiatives like TransitCity almost before his office was set up. The slashing sound delighted his base – never mind that he was racking up millions in contract cancellation fees and proposing even more expensive plans.

The federal government has been making more calculated populist gestures. By ditching the mandatory long-form census, it appealed to a "hands off my info!" feeling among its small-government base – although advocates of leaner government pointed out that census data can be a small-government advocate's best friend, as it can expose ineffective programs.

On crime, the federal government is running against widely accepted evidence about effective corrections policy, and "cracking down" at a time when crime rates are in decline. With a slim majority of Canadians believing (incorrectly) that crime is on the rise in Canada, the government is unlikely to suffer for this policy – yet.

---

Related: No Room for Debate

---

Voters can become disenchanted when populist policies become too expensive or too obviously misguided. After years of lapping up tough-on-crime measures that have filled their prisons to overflowing, for instance, Californians have grown tired of footing the bill. “Smart on crime” suddenly looks better (and cheaper) than “tough on crime.”

Even Don Cherry can take his manly populism too far. Famous for tilting at the windmills of political correctness, Cherry overdid it recently by criticizing former hockey players who have spoken out about the medical consequences of their former rock 'em sock 'em ways. Even a message aimed at the choir can hit the wrong note if it sounds too mean or too dumb.

Those who seek popularity by riding a backlash of anger must be careful not to stir up a backlash of reason.

Origin
Source: the Mark