Summary

Does advocating for or even simply supporting America First mean that we are being appropriately patriotic, or does it mean that America must win not only our military wars, but trade wars, currency disputes and win every other time we brush up against another country or group of countries, e.g., NATO, the EU or the G7?

Transcript

Does advocating for or even simply supporting America First mean that we are being appropriately patriotic, or does it mean that America must win not only our military wars, but trade wars, currency disputes and win every other time we brush up against another country or group of countries, e.g., NATO, the EU or the G7?

Here’s the answer: When we are playing zero sum games, where one side must win and the other side must lose, then it must always be America First. Fortunately, these types of “games”, e.g., wars and international contests like the soccer World Cup, are rare. And in the case of sports, not all that important. The zero sum name comes from simple arithmetic: when one side wins, they get a plus 1; the losing side gets a minus 1; the total, the sum, is zero. Hence the highly descriptive name, zero sum game.

Seeing everything as a series of zero sum games would be a terrible way of going through life. Imagine feeling that every time you have a disagreement with your spouse or a friend; that in order for you to win, they must lose. Or if every time you buy something from a store, it has to be a win for you, and a loss for that business. You want a raise or a promotion at work? Doesn’t the deal you strike with your employer need to be a win-win? Imagine what this process would be like if both sides saw it as a win-lose, zero-sum game. Famously, Stephen Covey promotes Habit # 4, win-win or no deal. That’s a must, a key, for any deal, transaction or interchange that is not inherently a zero sum game.

Today’s key point: In any event, deal or transaction, between individuals, businesses or countries, win-win or no deal is the standard. Win-win or no deal is the model for handling negotiations and for judging the outcome. And win-win means that both sides need to see their win; it does not mean that someone tells one side or the other they won and then tells them to be happy about it. The rare exceptions are events that dictate only one winner and one loser, e.g., wars or athletic contests.

While we are at it, let’s discard the antiquated notion that any compromise that makes both sides equally unhappy is a good one. All this philosophy does is evenly divide the misery. Conversely, win-win spreads the joy and benefit of winning.

As we unpack this together, the first question to ask is whether or not the negotiations, the event, we are looking at is a zero sum game. Let’s try some examples:

Increasing taxes on the half of tax filers who pay them to further redistribute wealth and income. There is no inherent need for one side to win and the other to lose. If that was the case, wouldn’t any redistribution be another major step closer toward outright civil war? If more redistribution is to be mandated, this has to be a win-win.

Tariffs. This had better be a win-win, or allies will be weakened or lost, and enemies will dig in further.

Immigration. This one cries out for the win-win standard. Don’t we need a win for the immigrants, and their new countries?

Minimum wage hike. Both employers and the employees need to see their wins here.

Relations with other countries, e.g., North Korea, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. If we see ourselves as being in a state of war with a country, either a cold war or a shooting war, then the zero sum game rules apply. And if they really do apply, then we must win or risk losing. And the only thing worse that being in a war is losing one.

Abortion. If there is any chance the entity in the womb is a live hu...