I wouldn't say Pat Buchanan isn't a wonky Republican, or that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are wonky. Palin and Beck on this issue just happen to be on side of who they'd in any other case call the 'elitists' in academia. Just as a mater of historical accuracy, labeling tariff policies as progressive would be a big mistake. In the early 20th century, conservatives were all solidly behind tariff policies, it was the progressives who opposed them — it fit into their world view about internationalism — Woodrow Wilson being one of the biggest proponents of free trade. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points ) Conservatives maintained the Whig position, which went back all the way to Alexander Hamilton.
Conservatives only changed their views during the Cold War when free trade it was seen as an economic and political weapon against the Soviet Union. That was one of the defining features, in fact, of what made the neo-conservative movement — they were internationalist conservatives, wanting policies that help establish the dominance of the free market across the globe. In order to achieve that, they supported military intervention abroad, free trade, open borders, and so on..
So be careful when this other Republican prospect explains how globalism is really conservative and how isolationism is progressive. You're going to see a lot of backlash to the Glenn Beck-style libertarian type of messaging. All the holes in his account of history will be forced open.
I myself am against free trade, but I still think what Trump is proposing is ludicrous. Tariffs can be seen as a policy tool or a weapon. I don't think "China is screwing us", I just think we have bad policy.
/