The part of "bootstrap through tarrifs" that's missing here is the "bootstrap" phase.
You can get away with selling domestic rubbish to local consumers when you're a poor country with few options. For an established industrial power:
1. Consumers will not change their behaviour unless you apply punitive levels of tarrifs. A 10% tax probably won't make the customers who have bought a Lexus for their last five cars switch to Lincoln. That's probably why Washington felt they could get away with the huge levies on Chinese EVs (a new market with no established consumer behaviour being disrupted), but didn't breathe a word about Made-in-China Buicks (an established market full of old people who vote).
2. It doesn't grow the total pie very much. When you're Outer Slobavia and just getting your first industrial plants off the ground, there's a lot of growth to be had just reclaiming the domestic market from foreign competitors. But the US is a mature player in most of these markets already. Removing foreign competitors will only buy a few percent market share.
Admittedly, tarriffs don't cause low quality by themselves. It's more that the package deal being presented is "we won't bother making American industry more competitive, since we can just go insular and high-tarriff to create a captive market to keep American factories alive." Even if you win at that captive market, that's a far smaller upside than if they had instead said "we're going to get back on the leading edge of manufacturing and make American products globally aspirational."
