If "special character" refers to the significant advances trade unions have made in relation to conditions and renumeration for the majority of the working class, then, yes, I agree.

To take away someone's livelihood because they are more expensive than someone in another country would sow the seeds of considerable hatred towards the people responsible. Particularly in areas such as the rust belt, where there are no other opportunities that would come close to what was taken away.

Couple this with an easily identifiable target, foreigners, than you have the beginning of a nationalistic movement.

Now saturate this nationalistic audience with the disproportionate wealth of the winners of globalisation.

Finally, patronise this audience with expert opinions on why their losses where necessary or non-important. Bingo! You have successfully alienated enough of the population to cause a revolt. In this case, a rejection of the status quo.

As to the election, did people reject Hillary or her message? Her message was clear, the status quo. Even union members/sympathisers abandoned Hillary, hence Trumps victory in the rust belt. Trump promised them hope, their jobs, and bashed globalisation and foreigners enough to make them believe it. His core message? A nationalistic one. Make America Great Again. The working class spoke.

Will Trump deliver? It doesn't matter. If he delivers on jobs, people get what they want. If he doesn't, the next election will be uglier than this one, and that is saying something. What Trump offers by not succeeding due to his background and nature may be far more tantalising to people negatively affected by globalisation.

So no, people have long memories and globalisation has had negative consequences which people will remember until they die, the negative experiences will naturally be remembered and the good experiences pushed aside.