India and China were the biggest adherents to these policies, until gap between their economies and the economies of the West became too glaring to ignore. Both had convinced themselves that the West’s (relatively) open trade policies impoverished them, until they cut themselves off and discovered the meaning of real poverty.
In the US, we never adopted a strong "import substitution" policy, except for selected industries (steel, agriculture) at certain portions of our history, and even in the latter cases, we had tariffs contra foreign imports, but never blocked them entirely (due to high demand). Even Pat Buchanan has admitted that we were never a truly "protectionist" nation.
Until the mid-20th century, the pattern was generally for the industrialists/residents of the industrial states (the NE and upper Midwest) to support protectionism, while the South and, to a lesser extent, farmbelt states supported liberalized trade (due to the lucrative ag export markets, and the high cost of goods that resulted from tariffs).
What few people realize is that the national income tax was pushed by the very same western and southern states that are viewed today as being very antitax. Southern Senators frequently condemned the tariffs on imported goods as being "robbery" on the part of the northern states. The income tax was pushed by such folks in the belief that the burden would be placed on wealthier individuals in the north in place of the high tariffs that were hurting southern/western consumers (as well as their prospects for agricultural exports).