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.