IN 1937, Joseph Stalin assigned a comprehensive census of the Soviet Union. The data reflected some uncomfortable facts – in particular, the population growth in the areas destroyed by the famine in 1933 – thus the government of Stalin’s suppression of the scanning results. After that, many high -ranking statistical workers were apparently imprisoned and apparently executed. Although the Soviet authorities will pride in the national statistics that glorify the achievements of the Soviet Union, any numbers that are not commensurate with the favorite narration have been buried.
A few weeks ago, after issuing “disappointing” job data from the Bls Statistics Office (BLS), Donald Trump launched the Commissioner for Labor Statistics, Dr. Erika Minarker, and claimed that the numbers were “forged”. He also announced his intention to assign an unprecedented census outside the scheduling of the residents of the United States (this happens every 10 years and it must be the next in 2030) with the assertion that this census “will not count the illegal immigrants.” The real goal is supposed to be to provide a set of population estimates that can be used to reinforce Congress seats and provinces before the elections in the middle of the period 2026 and ensure the favorable conditions for the republican control of Congress-although it is not clear that there is time or adequate support from Congress to achieve this. According to the “administration”, the update of the “national climate assessments and various important sources of data on issues related to the topics related climate General health disappeared. In addition to all this, the Trump Ministry of Justice launched an investigation into the crime statistics of the urban capital, claiming that a significant decrease in violent crime rates in 2024-is the lowest number of violent crimes registered throughout the city in 30 years-deformed, driven by decorative or processing techniques. One can say that the charge of “fake data” is just a cousin close to “fake news” and that all of this is equal to the course of an administration that insists that an alternative fact is the truth. But this style may also generate an anxious (Soviet and Soviet) state specifically: the general belief that all “political” data is fake, and one can generally not trust statistics. We must resist this model transformation, as it mainly works to consolidate tyranny.
Ultimately, it was common feelings in the Soviet Union that one could not trust in “official numbers” because it was largely manipulated to serve political interests. (At least, this is the feelings that my parents reported, who grew up in the Soviet Baltic countries during the 1960s and 1970s-I was a child when we left in the late eighties of the last century, so I cannot report much directly). It is difficult to expand your point of view to include people’s experiences in completely different circumstances. This type of narrow world with a few common reference points is bad for democracy and building solidarity across groups. It also makes it easy for a repressive state to cultivate false and division “facts” to serve its goals; We will have a fake crime wave here and a prosperous economy there, and although most people do not believe this, they also do not believe the opposite. No one can demand the credibility or competition of any socially related trends because all numbers are fake, and therefore the demand and competing activities for things become useless-just do what you can stay away from.
The political culture that does not trust data or statistics is also the culture that depends more on the mysterious decisions taken by the elites behind the closed doors. In his influential historical study on the rise of the quantum bureaucracy, historian Thomas Porter notes that taking policy decisions on the calculated numerical costs and benefits reduces the role of “local” discretionary power and can have a homogeneous impact, which can enhance the control of the central state. The other side of this currency is that it also raises people in power from a part of their authority by enabling a degree of general transparency and scrutiny: If a huge government project should be justified by referring to some cost accounts and philosophers, these accounts and challenge can be examined by various parties. If the government agency requires documentation of progress in initiatives, then proving that public funds are spent appropriately, and evidence of those who benefit from the benefits and the amount of some, there is a less space for corruption and mismanagement provided that the information is related to relevant. Without reliable data, the facts on the ground reflect, how can the audience return to the “crisis” narration that was invented, was prepared to justify the protest with emergency powers?
Anyone who spends any time to work with data perfectly realizes that there are many options that must be taken in data collection or processing – there are many “decision points” about what to include, how to determine or measure things accurately, etc. In fact, as much as the data is used to tell stories about complex things such as the state of the economy or the health of the population, different data analysis options or somewhat analysis can provide support to different accounts, including previously defined accounts if an involvement analyst is appointed. But this does not follow that “anything is going” or that the statistics are meaningless. There are better and worse ways to collect and analyze data, both reasonable and reasonable methods to answer experimental questions such as “Are crime rates in the capital rising or decreasing?” More importantly, when government statistics are managed by qualified and non -partisan officials, relevant numbers can be challenged and discussed, then we have a democratic basis to direct our institutions to better political decisions. Public importance data should be available to the public, not to hide from the show.
Trump’s assault on data integrity is not his worst continuous violations-the audience should be more angry by persuasive agents who disappear people in the streets and city centers that occupy the National Guard-but this type of procedures should be very worrying. It is a slow boiling: If we get to the point in which one of the numbers trusts because it is “fake data”, then the time will be too late for resistance and it is very difficult to retract the damage. The opposition must prevent the dates of unqualified candidates and clearly bias to lead the BLS and other agencies responsible for data management. We must resist unjustified interference in data collection, whether at the level of the American census or at the level of the city’s government. On the contrary, we must invest in initiatives that enhance the public’s confidence in and understand the social, economic and environmental data that can be used to direct decisions that affect the well -being of our societies.