I am of two minds about protectionism. If the playing field is level and we’re talking about an industry that isn’t vital to the national interest, I’m not for protecting it. That is best for all concerned, except for the people who are working in that industry who will lose out. (Why they lose out is another story. Excessive union costs and state regulation play as big a role as anything. You can’t blame a company for fleeing those if it makes them more competitive.) However, when I say a level field, I mean one were the workers in the other country are free to negotiate their own wages, like India. But in China, the workers are essentially slaves. If you can’t leave your job without permission then you are a slave and American workers are competing against slaves.
As far as protectionism, take the Internet as the classic case. Governments know that taxation kills industries, so Congress exempted the Internet from taxes. That’s being challenged by states who have won numerous battles. If I buy from Amazon I owe state taxes equal to my local tax rate as Amazon located a shipping center in my state. The protection is slowly slipping away. Too bad, as I know some elderly people who make their living off buying at yard sales and selling on eBay. They are essentially living off the difference that vanishes when you start taxing.
Other industries that may need protection is anything that is needed for national defense. But let’s not get ridiculous. I believe that mohair is still a defense priority. Come on, let’s get real.
I think it has to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and throw out the dogma.
The level playing field doesn't exist. Thinking government can create one is economic suicide.