People who are worried about the dislocations caused by trade and outsourcing tend to emphasize those dislocations at the expense of the net gains created by globalization. And people who are staunch free traders emphasize the net gains while arguing that the labor market impacts are not that huge. Whatever the empirical evidence, neither of these positions is internally logically consistent.
The reason is simple: the net gains created by trade (and outsourcing) are the very result of the restructuring that globalization's critics fret about. Gains from trade arise from specialization--which requires that we shut down down some economic activities while we expand others. So if you believe that globalization is a big deal in terms of aggregate income gains (as people like Mankiw and Bhagwati do), you HAVE to believe that a lot of workers will be displaced from their current jobs. And conversely if you think job "losses" will be large (as Blinder thinks), you must face up to the implication that the eventual efficiency gains must be large.
(A footnote: gains from trade are also possible without economic restructuring, if they are based purely on different consumer tastes across countries. But when economists make the case for gains from trade, they focus on the gains from the production side, not the consumer side).
This has another important implication. The differences among economists on globalization cannot be the product of different economic models or different readings of the empirical evidence. Regardless of the model or the evidence you believe in, you either think the net gains and the distributional "costs" are both small potatoes, or you think they are both a big deal. Instead, these differences seem to be grounded in differences in ethical valuations and political predilections. The key lies in how you value distributional consequences relative to aggregate gains, and in the role you attribute to the government in fixing things.
It is not the economics that is driving us apart. It is different conceptions of the common good and of the role of the state.