Except both are valid economic strategies for increasing income. Protectionism reduces the labour pool, so demand is higher relative to supply, which increases wages. Basic income increases wages by redistributing wealth.
The downside to protectionism is it makes it harder for firms to find workers. The downside to basic income is that it's a massive expense to government, would require higher taxes, and may reduce incentives for people to work (which is why it's mostly being trotted out as a way for people to subsist when automation potentially wipes out labour).
I'm not saying there's no validity to either of them as strategies, just that they're big differences from the way we operate today and there's nothing to mandate their application except these politicized exaggerations.
I more mean the bleak pictures painted to gain these ideas favor are pretty much junk in my opinion.
The downside to protectionism is it makes it harder for firms to find workers. The downside to basic income is that it's a massive expense to government, would require higher taxes, and may reduce incentives for people to work (which is why it's mostly being trotted out as a way for people to subsist when automation potentially wipes out labour).