This Paul Krugman blog is worth reading:

"I’ve written on a number of occasions about the Veg-O-Matic temptation — the urge to claim that your preferred policy solves all problems — it slices! It dices! It purees! It creates jobs! It raises productivity! It takes off weight without diet or exercise! There’s also the reverse version, in which a policy you dislike does everything bad — It’s inflationary! It’s contractionary! It causes acne!

When you see Veg-O-Matic claims, you should always be suspicious. Sometimes a policy does kill two or more birds with one stone — there’s a very good case that infrastructure investment under current conditions, with interest rates very low and economies still under capacity, would create jobs now, enhance long-run growth, and even improve fiscal prospects. But conclusions like that shouldn’t be accepted without a lot of hard thinking and self-criticism; you need to bend over backward to avoid falling into wishful thinking."

(...)

"I come here not to praise Trump — God no — and would be happy to see his political ambitions buried, with maximum ignominy. He would destroy American civil society; destroy our hopes of containing climate change; destroy U.S. influence by trying to bully everyone in sight. It’s very scary that there’s any chance that he might end up with his (long) finger on the button.

But too many anti-Trump critics seem to have settled on one critique that happens not to be right: the claim that a turn to protectionism would cause vast job losses. Sorry, that’s just not a claim justified by either theory or history.

Protectionism reduces world exports, but it also reduces world imports, so that the effect on overall demand is a wash; textbook economic models just don’t say what conventional wisdom is asserting here.

History doesn’t support this line of attack either. Protection in the 1930s was a result, not a cause, of the depression; the early postwar years, when tariffs were still high and exchange controls were pervasive, were marked by very full employment in many countries.

Why, then, focus on such a weak argument against a truly despicable candidate? I think I know the answer: it’s an argument that doesn’t involve taking on bad things in the Trump agenda that differ from the agenda of other Republicans only in degree."

(Read the blog here.)

I'm not here to praise Trump, God no, but Mr. Trump is to a certain degree a scapegoat for much more general ills that threaten the concept of democracy.
For one, what about the people who support Mr. Trump? Is there suddenly no free will and moral responsibility anymore? Because it's an election process.
And yes, Mr. Trump is not so different from politicians who are considered mainstream.

Now protectionism: if protectionism doesn't cause job losses, why should we be against protectionism?

I'm against it, but I would like to know why.

In this aspect I don't differ from most voters. They are against it and they would like to know why. Well, sometimes they don't want to know why.