I’ve gotten a lot of feedback — relative to the humble size of my readership — on my Core Principle #1: Non-Tribalism. According to this principle, I judge international economic policy for its impact on global welfare, where outcomes for each person in every country weigh equally.

“Should a government not try to maximize the welfare of its own citizens (and tax payers)?” readers wrote. And, “Economics requires that each party act in its own self-interest.”

This is a major challenge to my philosophy. On the one hand, I say that tribalism, as I will further define it below, is bad. On the other, I agree that self-interest is a natural force that, in the right context, benefits everyone. In this post, I attempt to navigate definitions that show these beliefs to be mutually compatible. (Of course, I might be fooling myself and rationalizing self-contradicting beliefs. In that case I will have to revise my Core Principle #1, just two posts into my new blog. Let me know.)

Below, I will try to show:

• What “tribalism” means and how it differs from rational self-interest;
• Examples from current events;
• Why tribalism is harmful;
• Finally, for those still reading, I will briefly consider if the Brexit maps onto the concept of tribalism.

What I Mean By Tribalism

If I were a citizen of Country X, comparing my country to Country Y, I could hold several pro-Country X ideas including:

1. My country’s system of governance is more conducive to human flourishing;
2. My country’s people are inherently more valuable;
3. I hope for favorable outcomes for the people of Country X more than for the people of Country Y; or
4. Rules that make favorable outcomes more likely for the people of Country X than County Y are justified.

In his book Moral Tribes, author Joshua Greene describes tribalism as a gut reaction that says “we count more than they do,” which then  justifies policies that weigh “our” interests above “theirs”. Greene argues that this emotion is a limitation of our intuitive morality, which evolved to cooperate with people nearby and fight off others.

Reading back over the list I numbered above with this definition of tribalism in mind, I would say:

• Statement #1 may be supported or not supported by evidence but is not tribalistic.
• Statement #2 is squarely tribalistic.
• Statement #3 may be a symptom of tribalism but is not my practical focus. I might hope that my sister wins a job promotion over the other candidates without believing that a policy that disadvantages the other candidates is justified.
• Statement #4 is tribalistic and is my primary focus in this blog.

In the area of national trade policies, an interesting case exists where the interests of a tax-paying citizen may come up against the interests of a non-citizen, and the citizen may feel entitled to advantages over the non-citizen on the grounds that he has paid for them (in taxes). Setting aside the classic economic arguments on free trade, arguments that have already been well made, I will separately argue that our tax payments do not include the purchase of a non-level playing field in international commerce. (I will lay this out in a separate post about getting what we pay for in taxes, and not less, but not more.)

Tribalism vs. Rational Self-Interest

In a market economy, a self-interested individual will work hard to deliver valued goods and services to others as efficiently as possible, and to respond rapidly to changing preferences. What could be better?

This effort and innovation, the hallmarks of a market economy, are best incentivized when the playing field is level. A level playing field means all participants can come to the market and compete, differentiating themselves according to whatever advantages they can offer, whether that be a lower price or higher quality. (Free competition doesn’t have to mean totally unregulated; environmental rules might limit certain output but still allow immense variety in quality and pricing otherwise.) Is there a better environment for promoting constructive work and innovation on a global scale than a level global playing field?

Tribalism justifies the tilting of the playing field. It justifies the establishment of advantages that protect domestic workers and businesses against international workers and businesses. Self-interest is a force that thrives within a level playing field.

Examples of Tribalism in Current Events

“The Trans Pacific Partnership would force American workers to compete against desperate workers in Vietnam who are paid as little as 56 cents an hour. That would be a disaster.” — Bernie Sanders

“We’re going to start winning.” — Donald Trump

The Bernie quote sounds like a George Costanza line:

GEORGE: Jerry, these Vietnamese workers are earning 56 cents an hour. It’s a disaster!

JERRY: That’s gotta be rough for them.

GEORGE: I’m not talking about them, I’m talking about me! I’ve gotta compete with them!

Bernie’s policy would advantage Americans to the exclusion of the Vietnamese workers he mentions, whose wage is perhaps one-tenth of the U.S. minimum wage. Whatever the marginal utility of an extra dollar to an American union member, it is surely greater to a Vietnamese factory worker.

At least Bernie conveys some empathy for the Vietnamese, however. Trump describes international economic policy in starkly competitive terms, where the U.S. will “win,” and implicitly whoever else he has in mind will lose.

Why Tribalism is Harmful

Three tangible costs of tribalism include:

1. Time and resources poured into setting up barriers is a use of limited resources that does not grow a crop, cure a disease or create art.
2. For those on the weak end of a power imbalance, the act of a more prosperous country keeping out your products and workers could be devastating.
3. For prosperous countries, freezing out products from the developing world still deprives you of the variety and comparative advantages offered by the developing country, as well as the pressure on domestic industries to keep innovating.

The Brexit

I favor market integration over market segregation in general, and would prefer to see the world move closer to one big frictionless market. The Brexit, by those lights, is a step in the wrong direction. But the EU is more than a trade union, so the Brexit is more complicated than that.

Is the Brexit a case of tribalism? To the extent that the Brexit was motivated by voters’ desire to avoid competing with immigrants economically, yes. To the extent that the Brexit was motivated by voters’ intent to dissociate from what they see as bad policy (i.e., harmful to global welfare if rolled out on a global scale), no. How’s that for hedging?

Solutions to Tribalism

If I can think of any, they will come in later posts.