Yes, fair enough, there were a lot of problems with it. The issue is I think Trump is opposed not just to the detail of the proposed deal, but to multilateral deals in general, presumably because he feels it means the US is bound by globalist institutions. But the US or Europe, or Japan, or any of the other countries involved in these deals, cannot accomplish a goal of preventing something like this on their own. They have to join together, and joining together means being bound by jointly created rules. In order to meet these goals, the US has to accept a role not just as a leader but also as one member among many (a role commensurate with a population and economy perhaps 15-30% of the total rather than as a hegemon talking to a minor ally).
I'm from the midwest (originally). The problem with any trade deal is that the middle class was told that it was going to be good for them and it wasn't. Yes, you can say they should have thought about it and they could have seen that trade deals even out labor costs but nobody told them that.
So today, any trade deal is viewed as "here we go again" no matter what the actual content says.
I think that's a fair point. There needs to be a lot more thought put into how trade deals can benefit the whole of society, and what social and political structures you need to help ordinary people prosper under those circumstances. Worth pointing out that there are also a lot of benefits for them as well. And I'm not sure we have a choice, global trade is clearly more efficient, individually countries will just be routed around if they isolate themselves, and if we managed a global shift towards protectionism we would serve to reduce global growth and probably increase conflict as more people struggle (in our own countries as well).
