Personally, I think it is a delicate balance between protectionism and "Hyper-efficient world-market via free trade" that should be aimed for.
The "Hyper-efficient world-market" ignores local issues that cause real societal ills, that can ultimately be traced to low domestic wages, driven down by the world market's reduced prices, due to lower world wages, coupled with high domestic costs of living, and unfixable demographic issues about mental capabilities that restrict going "Full service economy".
The econimist jargon I keep hearing extolls the joys and virtues of the hyper-efficient world market, saying that "if you can get it cheaper from X, then why make it domestically at all anyway?" and can cite a large amount of theory as to why this is so.
However, again, the need for employment by the local economy, that CANNOT be handwaved away via "We just retrain them from making whizzbangs to serving coffee at starbucks" and other such things (Oh, sorry, "Move them to the 'services industry', my bad.) because not everyone is intellectually equipped for such a switch, and the cavalier behavior of the economists on the matter is very dehumanizing, valuing money over people's actual prosperity.
On the flipside, going gung-ho isolationist on the economy is how you copy North Korea's horrible economic perils.
I would say that we need to retain a secured and suitably protected amount of domestic manufacturing to cover the statistical spread of our population's employment needs, while still reaping benefits of the international market. Sorry econmists, but yes-- that is inherently inefficient, and there is dick you can do about that unless you can handwave away lower IQs, or magically bestow interest or competences in service jobs.