Instead of dunking on the Cato bros, I'll try a more serious response, arguments against protectionism are it (1) raises costs, (2) the real danger to jobs is automation, (3) it undermines the global liberal order and (4) the jobs aren't coming back...

(1) Yes protectionism imposes economic costs, but trade shocks impose non economic costs, look what deindustrialization did to Baltimore, did we factor in all the unemployed young men killing each other there? What about suicides from job losses in the Rust Belt?

(2) The role of automation in killing jobs is contested and in no way established fact, Autor and Dorn estimated 2 mil jobs lost to the PNTR, EPI has the number at 3.4 million, factories in the rust belt didn't just become more efficient, they closed, MI lost 450K jobs in 2000s

(3) As to whether the trade shocks and all their devastation were worth it because they promote a liberal cosmopolitan order I'm just going to say lol and move along

(4) No protectionist wants to return to the 30s and 40s, the goal is to protect our industries from PNTR like shocks, strategically reshore some supply chains and protect weaker US industries from competition due to $ manipulation, that's not nostalgia that's prudence