David makes the case that there are some arguments that are better than others for protectionist economic policy, even if none of them are persuasive, but there are none so counterproductive and misguided as merely calling your ideological opponents “globalists.” If the argument in classical economics against government intervention via protective tariffs is that they hurt American exporters, they hurt American importers, and they hurt American consumers, then the vocalizing of opposition can hardly be connected to “globalism.” For those who play this game, the intent is not to make a coherent argument at all, but to obfuscate, poison the well, and substitute innuendo in place of argument. For those who care for the American worker, we must do better.