Darren Beattie provided (in 2017) a much-needed defense of the ideological foundations of economic nationalism:
It is entirely possible therefore to support tariffs, immigration restrictions, and various other restrictions on the free market in a manner that benefits the American worker and that is also consistent with the highest respect for individual freedom, enterprise, self-reliance, and other virtues of capitalism.
He makes a great point about the Cold War context which spawned free-trade ideology:
The Soviets who posed an existential geopolitical threat to the United States embraced a generally classical Marxist philosophy that was both an economic and a moral doctrine.
Free-trade doctrine provided an ideological foil to an expansionist Marxist regime. From that standpoint, it has served its purpose.
But today’s threats of concentrated power do not seem to conform to the “government dangerous, private sector benign” picture as easily as they may have during the Cold War. This is because 1) the distinction between public and private seems to no longer apply to many of the most powerful sectors of the economy, and 2) new forms of technology have enabled equally dangerous concentrations of power to accrue in the private sector (think of Silicon Valley). So, with the end of the Cold War, we must reevaluate the relationship between economics and liberty.
Furthermore, several structural features in the economy have accelerated since the end of the Cold War that severely threaten the middle class, whose robust health is often considered indispensable to a culture of individual freedom.
It is also indispensable to political stability.
Beattie is right that the public discourse is very superficial on this issue, as I pointed out with reference to trade policy in my post on Ian Fletcher’s book Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why. In fairness, trade policy is boring and makes for poor clickbait. Also, most pundits and politicians have absolutely no clue about economics. Fortunately, this article is free of economic jargon and just addresses the ideological assumptions underpinning most people’s thinking on the trade topic.