If you look at the history of tariff's in the US, from the beginning right up until Ronald Reagan virtually opened up America's asshole for a good pounding, in order to enrich a handful of rich banks and corporations, tariffs were always about protecting workers.
Subsidies are the opposite of tariffs, though I give you credit for trying to slip that one by us. It shows you're willing to inject a lie into an argument in order to gain a point. Subsidies only raise prices. They are always pro-corporate and anti-worker. Tariffs on the other hand are part of an industrial policy that helps boost wages. It includes greater pricing power for labor, strict (and swift) enforcement of anti-trust laws, and a minimum wage at least at 1960's levels (which would be over $20/hr in today's dollars). If we had a sensible domestic policy, ADM would have been broken up long ago.
The post-Carter experiment with "free trade" has been nothing but a disaster for Americans. TVs are cheaper, of course, but wages are down, two parents have to work when it used to be one, and profits flow off-shore. So now, with the workforce puffed up by the decline in incomes due to Reaganomics, we are told that things are bad because workforce participation is down, even though it's still above 1960's levels. The use of this argument shows just how willing the corporatist elite are to play a very long game. Convince people that low-wage workers and the unemployed and the middle class have it "too good" while trying to argue that we need to "unshackle" the Fortune 500.
Where did you get the notion that tariffs are "pro-corporate"? Corporations don't have nationalities. They are not people, my friend. How long do you expect Americans to be beaten up by Ronald Reagan's policies before you're ready to admit they're a failure?