"It will take decades to undo the damage from this latest bout of isolationism and protectionism." I take issue with the assumption that these two things are e

"It will take decades to undo the damage from this latest bout of isolationism and protectionism." I take issue with the assumption that these two things are either equal or synonymous, and that the latter has or will cause damage. To boil the argument down, national sovereignty is the real issue at hand, and there is plenty of nuance to be had in the discussion. Such flippant dismissal of protectionism as bad and equating it with isolationism reeks of irrationality and a lack of understanding of the bigger geopolitical and geoeconomic picture. It's a position I see taken very often these days, but it's not one that stands up to scrutiny in my experience. I would like to say I do understand where it comes from though. It's easy to assume protectionism = isolationism, and therefor rejection of any globally focused trade agreement ergo becomes another form of isolationism, and hence from that perspective it makes sense, but even a base line academic analysis would show much more room for nuanced discussion of the subject. Of course, that's assuming that your goal is debate or discussion conducive to finding truth in the first place, which I suspect isn't the case.