Ever since “Liberation Day,” President Trump’s tariff policy has provoked spirited public discussion. Supporters and opponents have vigorously debated the economic and political consequences of the administration’s departure from our governing elites’ preference for free trade.
There is, however, another aspect of the question—an ethical component—that is suggested by Trump’s rhetoric, although it has not been fully developed.
“America First” is one of the famous slogans Trump often deploys in defense of his tariff policy. The president’s use of this phrase implies that his efforts to regulate trade are in the service of a preferential concern for America over other nations. In other words, on his own understanding, Trump is embarked on a patriotic trade policy. This observation forces us to consider the questions: What is patriotism, and what does it have to do with trade and tariffs?
Patriotism is a love of country and also, necessarily, a love of one’s fellow countrymen. Most human beings in our own time and throughout history have regarded patriotism as a natural and normal human emotion—but also as a virtue or a duty. In other words, normal people care for their country with a warm affection and are willing to, and feel an obligation to, subordinate their own interests to its well-being as circumstances may require.
What, then, does patriotism have to do with trade? We may begin with the following general consideration: If patriotism is real and important, shouldn’t we prefer to do business with our fellow citizens? Free market economists point out that voluntary exchanges of goods and services benefit both parties. If so, when each of us engages in trade, shouldn’t we want the other person benefitted to be an American rather than someone else?
Patriotism is intelligible on the understanding that a nation is like an extended family, with ties of affection and obligation that are weaker than familial ones, but stronger than those with the human race at large. But if familial love rightly leads us to prefer hiring a brother or a cousin, shouldn’t patriotism make us want to trade with Americans more than with foreigners? The answers to these questions are obvious, and they point to and justify public policies—like a modest, reasonable tariff—that encourage Americans to trade among themselves—but without forbidding foreign trade, which also brings benefits and has advantages.
This point can be further illustrated by two analogies that involve matters less and more urgent than those regarding international trade. In the realm of international sports competition (say, the Olympics) patriotism causes us to wish for and rejoice in the victory of American athletes. Why? Because such victory is among the good things of life, which we should especially desire for our fellow countrymen. This does not at all preclude also rejoicing in the victory of non-American competitors—because, say, they are exceptionally skilled or talented, display admirable integrity and sportsmanship, or are underdogs. Nevertheless, there would still be a patriotic inclination to want the gold medal to go to Americans.
If sports competition is less serious than trade, war is much more serious. Here again, and very obviously, the good of our own nation takes precedence. It would be permissible, and maybe even meritorious, for anyone who is able to help any country in a just war. Nevertheless, we would fail in our patriotic duty if we helped another nation—no matter how just its cause—at the expense of our own country’s interests. Of course, an extreme case might require some Americans to lay down their lives in defense of their fellow countrymen. If this is so, why may not the country ask some American consumers to pay a tariff with a view to encouraging beneficial economic interactions among Americans?
In sum, patriotism is an inclination and a duty to love one’s own. Accordingly, it will lead us to cheer for our own, fight for our own, and then do business with our own.
These general arguments certainly do not justify anything like economic isolationism or exclusion of foreign trade. There are other considerations in life besides patriotism, and trade with foreigners can often secure important benefits for both parties. These arguments do show, however, that patriotism, given its due weight, will justify a moderate policy of preferring and encouraging trade among one’s fellow countrymen—a policy that many nations have pursued, and that America has as much a right to pursue as any nation.
What about those nations that have imposed policies designed to exclude or seriously disadvantage American products? Such policies point to another way in which patriotism is relevant to trade policy.
Exclusionary policies impose a cost, or a kind of harm, on American exporters who wish to sell in a country with such policies. Such practices raise a question: Should our government do something to secure better treatment for these Americans? The patriotic answer is obvious. Love of our fellow countrymen should lead us to seek some redress on their behalf. And the most obvious way to get such redress is to impose retaliatory restrictions on the products of another nation to pressure its government into opening its market to American goods.
Critics of such policy observe that the cost of retaliation is borne most immediately by American consumers who have to pay a higher cost for imported goods. This objection has some merit, and it would certainly be foolish to pursue a retaliatory policy that harms Americans more than it helps them. Nevertheless, the complaint about cost cannot be allowed to control the entire question—at least not if patriotism is a real virtue and a real duty. If it is, then American consumers should be willing to bear some reasonable cost with a view to securing better treatment for their fellow Americans who are exporters.
This duty can be clarified by, once again, considering a more extreme situation. Suppose a foreign nation captured American merchant vessels carrying American products. Surely all would agree that it would not only be prudent policy for America’s long-term interests, but also a duty of patriotism and citizen solidarity to send our navy to protect the interests of American companies harmed by such predation. And no decent citizen would complain about bearing a share of the cost of such naval operations on the grounds that he’s not directly harmed by the piracy in question.
When one raises such a complaint, whether to the cost of retaliatory trade restrictions or to the cost of military operations, one is thinking not like a patriot but like a self-interested individual. Of course we are all self-interested individuals, so it is inevitable that such objections will occur. But we are not exclusively self-interested individuals: we are also members of a community that we love, and we care about our fellow citizens as well as ourselves.
Accordingly, such individualistic complaints alone cannot defeat the duty to impose retaliatory trade restrictions to secure better treatment for American exporters. Allowing such considerations to decide the question presupposes that Americans have no special obligation to help each other in the face of harmful policies of foreign nations. But we certainly do. If patriotism is real, those obligations matter a great deal—because they determine whether we have a country at all.