The fact remains, while a rising tide may lift all ships, it doesn't lift all ships equally -- and in developed countries, the wage-earning, non-tertiary-sector classes are left holding smaller relative pieces of the pie than before. Yes, chances are those jobs will have been lost to automation sooner or later. Yes, chances are those jobs are never coming back. But a manufacturing worker in the United States can lose their job to someone on the other side of the globe lifting foreign workers out of poverty, while real wages continue to stagnate [1][2] in the US. Cheaper foreign-made merchandise doesn't help a domestic family pay for homes, higher education (which is a way of buying job security), healthcare. At a certain point, people will start asking, "but what's in it for me?", which shouldn't be surprising.

[1] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ [2] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...

So my rational argument, I hope, is that one can't leave international disparity for long durations any more than they can leave internal disparity (or instead of it). It will catch up with you. This is a small planet. So when someone asks what's in it for me I think we have some answers for them. And we should also do better for them regardless. North Korea pursues an isolationist pose, how well is that working for the people there? How many American jobs are created because the companies they work for can trade globally? If anything the US is a prime example of how you can prosper while being more open.

EDIT: + cheaper goods do help everyone. As to high house prices that's a different story, don't blame globalism for that one.

It's not a question of globalization vs. isolationism. This is a false dichotomy. Rather, each sovereign state should try to look out of the interests of its people, and when they don't see results, the people may hold the government accountable by protest, election, or revolution.

Running a state is an immense task with lots of conflicting goals, but the survival of the state and the welfare of its people ought to be the most important. Sometimes this means more trade, sometimes it means less trade, sometimes it means a domestically-focused governance, and sometimes it means geopolitical machinations (if human history is any indication).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Empire [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War_(1826%E2%80%... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Em... [11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

If you look at things going on at the national level today in the US, Turkey, Britain, Russia, China you can see clear influence of global events. The Middle East and Africa clearly influences all the above in major ways and the US withdrawal from involvement there, if even possible (not), will not change that. The economy of China influences the entire world's economy. Look at countries like Switzerland and Canada who have traditionally tried to stay neutral and perhaps internal focussed in some sense, the Canadian economy has been hammered by the drop in commodity prices. The Swiss had to break their traditional banking secrecy due to external pressures. Climate change is affecting pretty much everyone and the risks it presents are almost unprecedented in human history.

EDIT: Look at how quickly a disease can spread to the entire planet. SARS, flu, Ebola...

Difference. Diversity.

If different nations aren't equal partners than what are they?

I can't think of a definition of "equal partners" that makes sense here.

partly because of their beliefs that at times seem to override any rational argument

This is a condescending and bad-faith argument.

So on what basis are emotion and rationality being separated here? Common sense?

EDIT: and to answer your question emotion and rationality are separated by coming from different places in the brain. I can be mad, or upset, or happy, or in love, without any rational reason. There's not a love=mc^2 equation. But just because I'm mad doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. I don't know if this makes any sense but that's my best answer.

EDIT2: Or maybe you're asking how I can tell whether a given position originates from belief, emotion, or rationality? Well, I can't. I'm certainly willing to engage in the discussion and entertain the possibility that erecting trade barriers between the US and the rest of the world will improve in some way something for those people in the US who are feeling hurt by globalization. Convince me. So far what I heard is "we'll bring those jobs back" not followed by any specific actions or explaining how those jobs will come back.

An ethos of "you do your thing and I'll do mine".