but "protecting" "important" industries can mean many things.
On "protection", that usually leads to inefficiencies in the market. This drives up costs because the industry making the product can't make it for less than some other competition (foreign or domestic). Here's a simple example, suppose there is a solar farm in MN and one in AZ and both have the same number of panels. Obviously, the one in AZ produces more electricity than the one in MN because its further south (more yearly sun) and is generally less cloudy. If you were to "protect" the MN solar farm you'd be promoting inefficiencies in the market by keeping a generally less productive producer on the market. Assuming the electricity is somehow going to the same consumers.
On "important", which ones are "important"? Is it some political pals biggest campaign contributor? Is it some billionaires pet project? You can get all kinds of shenanigans on this interpretation. But in the end its a political decision made by politicians and subject to cronyism and corruption.
Look, no one wants to loose their job. I get it. But if we truly believe in some form of Capitalism then layoffs, retooling and company demises are part of the normal flow of things. Economics, IMHO, is very similar to Biology's Theory of Evolution. Periodically there are shifts in the environment and the biota adjust or they perish. Not that we can't be compassionate about the situation, but we can't avoid that change is constant and we have to adjust. And I mean all of us, from the fry flipper at the fast food joint all the way up to the CEO and board members; they should all should be subjected to the consequences of bad financial decisions, which are sometimes out of their control.