Progressives with a global outlook bristle at phrases like “America First.” They see jingoism in boldly stated aspirations for American dominance. In a profoundly unequal world, they argue that U.S. foreign policy should aim to advance the welfare of all people.
Yet those same progressives — myself included — show themselves to be a lot less globalist and much more nationalist over international sports events, such as the Olympics and the World Cup. American spectators want Americans to win, which means defeating foreigners. The same holds true for individual sports, like tennis at the U.S. Open, where first-round play begins on Sunday.
But it’s not difficult to root for your compatriots while also valuing competition from foreign athletes. And that’s a lesson for nationalists who see a zero-sum game: Americans can wish for their nation’s economic success but also support fairness, cooperation and even empathy in relationships with those outside our borders.
To be sure, us-versus-them thinking comes naturally to humans, studies demonstrate. When Red Sox and Yankees fans were shown videos of baseball plays involving their teams, pleasure centers in the brain lit up at home team successes and rivals’ failures, one study showed. Another study of African soccer fans revealed that wins may affect perspectives on how governments allocate their budgets.
The rush of nationalistic rivalry is similar when spectators at the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in Queens, N.Y., drape themselves in their countries’ flags. They (generally playfully) present themselves as adversaries to players from the host country. U.S. fans, even those who decry America First nationalism, proclaim America first on the court.
This sense of competitiveness propels Americans generally to want national success in fields beyond sports, including scientific research, industry and the arts. Most of us prefer to be on a successful team.
But being on a team, like being part of international tennis, where players’ livelihoods depend on the success of the whole circuit, should also fuel a willingness to contribute in meaningful ways beyond narrow self-interest. National governments may mobilize resources to achieve scientific breakthroughs, as was the case with the rapid development of Covid-19 vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna. That science provided global benefits, even if they were not realized at the same time by all people. At M.I.T., the distinctly American institution where I work, everyone strives to carry out world-class research that will benefit both the country and the world.
Tennis teaches us several lessons in how a global viewpoint can go hand in hand with pursuing national achievement.
First we must recognize that sports are best when we all play — and compete — together. Imagine if the U.S. Open were open only to American athletes. The quality of the competition would decline, and so would interest in the tournament. On the men’s side of the draw, Jannik Sinner of Italy and Carlos Alcaraz of Spain are No. 1 and No. 2. We need them here to push our own American competitors, such as Taylor Fritz, Ben Shelton and Frances Tiafoe.
Even if no American reaches a late round, I will still celebrate an Alcaraz-Sinner match as a master class on athleticism and grit. When Martina Navratilova reflected on her long rivalry with Chris Evert, she highlighted the value of their fierce competition. “Even at the time I knew I was better for having her around,” she said in an interview with Sports Illustrated in May. “We made each other better.”
Second, we fans only appreciate the sport and return to it if the rules are fair and applied evenly. I would be crestfallen to learn that, however unlikely, the automated line calling had been rigged to give American players an advantage. What if the rankings were doctored to make the Americans higher in the draw? Trust would evaporate and the best players would not return in future years.
Third, we can see that national identities are fluid, and we should recognize clear limits to us-them thinking. Naomi Osaka was born to a Japanese mother and a Haitian American father, and lived most of her life in the United States. Many players share similar cross-cultural biographies. Love, friendship, coaching and financial relationships all cut across national boundaries. That should remind us that we are not all that different or distant from one another.
Some tennis relationships are truly adversarial, and real geopolitical tensions can affect the sport itself. Wimbledon initially banned Russian players and those of Russia’s ally, Belarus, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but later modified that approach, joining other tournaments in allowing those players to compete as neutral athletes. Balancing a mix of moral conviction and pragmatism, the sport has not descended into a spiral of exclusions and boycotts, as was the case with the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Olympics and the Soviet boycott of the 1984 games.
Taking a page out of the tennis playbook, American foreign policy could better serve our country and the world with an approach that harnesses the power of national pride while valuing a global playing field. Freer trade without high tariffs can spur our national industries to do better, and allow consumers to enjoy what others do better.
Easing access to our country for foreigners helps ensure that American universities, companies and other organizations can engage with and learn from the world’s talent. Fair and predictable adherence to international rules and the transparent sharing of verified data promote trust and lower the cost of doing business over the long term. The pursuits of American and global interests need not be viewed as a zero-sum game.
Admittedly, the stakes of tennis tournaments and geopolitics could not be more different. In two weeks the U.S. Open will be over, and hopefully the biggest casualties will be a few sprains and sore backs. By contrast, trade, economic and security rivalries will be ongoing, with substantial material consequences for people in every country around the world.
Nonetheless, even in international affairs, our leaders can put America’s interests first and also contribute to the global community in ways that are mutually compatible. That will require playing fairly, seeking to compete with everyone and not forgetting that those on the other side of the court are also human. In turn, progressives can rally around the flag without shame, and without abandoning concern for those beyond our borders.
Evan Lieberman is a professor of political science and the director of the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post America Firsters Need to Take Tennis Lessons appeared first on New York Times.
