The discussion on 4-9 is worth looking at. Among policymakers on both sides of the aisle, there is this reflexive recitation that trade increases economic efficiency. While that's true, that assumes the purpose of national policy is to increase economic efficiency. To the contrary, the mandate of politicians in a Democracy is to improve the welfare of the majority of voters.

Likewise, the discussion on 13-15 is important. People don't like the idea of valued social progress being undermined by unfair competition. There is an intuitive appeal to the idea that workers in America or Germany shouldn't have to compete with workers in countries where child labor is accepted and environmental standards are non-existent.

People wonder why boring trade policy becomes such an emotional thing, and the article does a great job of explaining why. The reason is not just scapegoating, as apologists of globalism assume. Rather, there is a deep-seated belief that citizens of the world types simply don't share our most basic values: that the government exists not to advance ideals, but the welfare of the polity; that social advances that are widely celebrated in the western world are worth more than economic efficiency, etc.[1]

[1] There is a reason even Trump campaigned on cleaning up the air and water. Even Americans who think the EPA or OSHA or DOL are out of control wouldn't tolerate the labor and environmental standards that exist in Bangladesh or China.