Over the last 50 or 60 years, the general intellectual trend has been away from economic protectionism and towards free trade. In fact, free trade is one of those things that can be said to be essentially unquestioned in intellectual circles. Economic models show that free trade improves the economic numbers and, theoretically, the standard of living of those countries that engage in it.

However, what the economic models often assume is that those workers who are displaced can find jobs that are as good as or better than those that were lost. In other words, they assume that the labor markets in the various countries are functioning as efficiently as the foreign trade market. Free trade is supposed to make everyone (or almost everyone) in the societies better off.

But what happens if it doesn’t? What happens if the jobs that replace those that disappear are not nearly as good as the ones that are lost? What happens if the people can’t move from places where the jobs disappear to places where the jobs are because of family responsibilities, lack of suitable skills, or any number of reasons. The fact is that if this happens, communities can economically and socially disintegrate. People eventually lose faith a political system that has traded away their livelihood and has left them with very little in return.

Although one can point to rising standards of living in societies that embrace freer trade relative to those that don’t, what has not been accounted for are the benefits that can arise from some economic protectionism. Without a doubt, trade protections can impose costs on society in the form of higher prices for products that might be produced elsewhere, or even lower product quality from industries that are not sufficiently competitive or innovative. However, the jobs that are created/saved through protectionist can provide income and stability to people/families that would otherwise not be there.

The second benefit of protectionist policies can provide is a sense among certain segments of the population that their government is looking out for them. One problem that the free trade dogma has produced in Western societies in general, and in the U.S. in particular, is the sense that the government is siding with foreign interests (and their domestic beneficiaries) against other groups of citizens. This has led to feeling in certain communities that they have lost control of their country, that their government doesn’t care about them (at best), or is actively hostile to them (at worst).

What is interesting in the anger of the elites in the Brexit vote and Trump vote is that there seems to be a belief that certain groups of citizens who have felt marginalized should simply sit there and take it, forever. In other words, they should keep voting for mainstream candidates and political parties (i.e. vote the way the elite and those who have benefited from globalization tell them to vote); parties and politicians who have promised much, but delivered very little. In certain circles, a vote for Trump or Brexit is seen as an act of treason. But to those whose livelihoods have been bargained away in trade deals, it is those politicians who are the real traitors.

In short, while free trade has perhaps helped lead to higher standards of living, the costs of these policies have been ignored for too long. While people who live in certain metro areas might feel like citizens of the world and might not feel any particular loyalty to a specific country (especially if their friends and workmates come from all over the world) people who live in outside of these areas still feel a kinship with their national community. Nations still matter, as election after election across the Western world is making clear. While economic protectionism might reduce some economic growth numbers, it can increase national solidarity and likely give more people a stake in the current political system. A governing system in which all citizens feel that their government is looking out for them is one that doesn’t have to worry that the people will choose a bizarre candidate to the highest office in the land. A bit of economic protectionism that stabilizes a political system might just be worth the economic cost.

Now that Iraqi Kurdistan and Catalonia have voted for independence, one can be forgiven for being confused as to what it all means. While there are unique reasons specific to these two entities that is pushing their drive for autonomy/independence, the fact is that world (and this is extremely noticeable in the Western world) is experiencing devolutionary pressures in general. Over recent years, there has either talk or active efforts to have Scotland break-away from Britain, Britain from the EU, splitting up Belgium, Catalonia from Spain, and even California & Texas from the U.S. In addition to this, recent years have seen Trump in the U.S. and Macron in France become President, two things that would have seemed impossible just 2 years ago, and now Catalonia. So what is causing the rough political consensus of the last 70 years to begin to fray? I believe that there are several contributing factors.

• Governments (and institutions) have lost legitimacy because they don’t seem to be delivering the goods.

Several decades ago in the U.S, trust in government and institutions was relatively high. While political pundits might argue about why, the simple fact is that while there might have been strong disagreements, the fact in the U.S. was that government, for all of its waste and inefficiency, was seen to have produced a higher standard of living. From 1930 to 1970, the Depression had been conquered, a World War had been won, roads were better, electricity, indoor plumbing were standard for everyone (they hadn’t been in 1930), air travel was better, schools were better, and we had just gone to the moon. In short, life was indisputably easier and government had visibly played a leading role in that. In addition, a strong defense posture (government again) was keeping Soviet tanks out of Western Europe.

Today, government doesn’t seem to be delivering the goods. Roads are worse, schools are worse, and we don’t send spacecraft into space anymore. We pay taxes, but there doesn’t seem to be an improvement in a standard of living, despite the fact that the national debt keeps going up and up. We spend massively on security, but attacks still get through. And we have a couple of 15 year-long failed wars. To use the example of a 40 year span, a person transported directly from 1930 to 1970 would immediately know he was in a different world. Apart from personal electronics, a person transported from 1977 to 2017 would not as there hasn’t been as much physical, visible evidence of improvement. In short, taxes are being paid, government is getting bigger, debt is increasing, but living standards aren’t visibly improving.

• Governments have lost legitimacy because global changes/ and policies are permanently disadvantaging certain groups/regions.

According to economics statistics, globalization has brought many benefits and raised living standards across the globe. Unfortunately in the West, those changes have come at the expense of certain segments of society. The lower-middle, and working classes have seen many of their jobs shipped overseas or automated, and nothing else comparable has replaced it. Meanwhile, new jobs created are in urban areas where political power resides. This has created a long observed trend in the West in which society is splitting into an upper class and everyone else. Because the political power resides in urbane areas that are doing well, those who actually make up government and economic elite (including the civil servants who have good salaries, great benefits, a cushy work schedule (in many cases), and an excellent retirement package; paid for by taxpayers who will never see those things), assume that everything is going well. Meanwhile, they continue to push trade policies and regulations (including environmental regulations) that lead directly to lack of opportunity in places that the elite don’t visit. If a country is to remain a country, there has to be a sense among the population that we are a family and all in this together. Instead, some governments have been essentially ignoring the pain and complaints of large parts of the population.

• Governments have lost legitimacy because the governing structures seem incapable of changing.

Although there are elections and people clamor for reform by electing the other guy, nothing has really changed. In the U.S., people were turned off by one party’s ineffectual war and fiscal irresponsibility turned to the other party, which produced more ineffectual war and fiscal irresponsibility. The fact that an attempt to reform healthcare in the U.S. revealed a government that couldn’t even produce a website without major effort, shows that an ineffectual government continues to be ineffectual no matter who is running it. Several attempts to change the President/Congress political party mix resulted in no discernable change in how things are done. Consequently, the country elected an outsider with political experience in an attempt to shake things up and reform things, the true sign of a political class/government that has lost legitimacy.

• Governments have lost legitimacy because they seem unwilling to protect their populations against foreign threats.

This can be most often seen in the area of immigration. The elites, in the U.S. and in Europe, seem to have a consensus that immigration is a good thing (morally and economically) full stop. While this can be the case, it is not a fact that all immigration is morally and economically a good thing. Massive immigration imposes costs on communities as well as benefits. There is increased competition for jobs. In some cases, crime might increase. There is an impact on the countries social welfare system, not to mention that citizens might have to be competing with immigrants for those resources as well. In addition, massive immigration from Islamic countries has heightened the risk of terrorism. In short, elite opinion views people who point this out and complain about it (i.e. those citizens who feel the impact most acutely) as being horrible, racist people whose struggles and views are illegitimate. In short, the central governments have essentially abandoned swaths (and in some cases geographically concentrated swaths) of their populations. More concern about foreigners than citizens dissolves the social contract.

In summary, the political upheaval being faced in the West today has deep roots and grievances that go beyond a single policy or a single election. The causes, in some cases, can go back decades or centuries, and frankly may not be resolvable under the current political constructs.

While modern communications technology makes it easier to organize and splinter groups can attain a level of visibility that they would not have in earlier times, it takes real, legitimate grievances to start a serious political movement. What have seen recently are massive signs that many segments in these societies have lost faith in their governmental institutions. Successful secession votes in Kurdistan and Catalonia are the ultimate signal of failing government legitimacy. Without massive reform, expect more secession movements in the future.