There’s little I could say in addition to Jonathan’s wonderful article laying out the case for a brokered bailout for Detroit. That said, I am a little more skeptical of Detroit’s commitment to change than he is, though the change I have in mind is bigger than what the Big Three are willing to contemplate--namely, a sharp reduction in their economic footprint. For too long the country has rested on the notion that American auto makers should be the linchpin of our economy, an idée fixe that, on the public’s part, has meant tolerating all sorts of subsidies and handouts, and on their part, has meant inflated production and employment rolls. We are now reaping the whirlwind of our national obsession with an industry that, frankly, we ceded leadership on long ago.

None of this is to say there isn’t a place for American auto manufacturing in our economy. Chrysler, Ford, and GM have turn out good cars, and they will be vital to any Washington-led effort to transition the country to a post-fossil fuel economy. But any bailout must be predicated on a planned shrinkage of the three companies. Suppliers need to be transitioned to other firms or industries, employment needs to be gradually reduced, and production facilities need to be shuttered. There should probably be a forced consolidation, too, with GM taking over Chrysler--a move that was already in the works before the credit crunch made it impossible to complete without government assistance.

The U.S. auto industry’s current crisis may have been catalyzed by the implosion on Wall Street, but its roots have been spreading for a long time. It makes no sense to prop up an industry that has been in a slow-motion collapse for decades. But a well-structured aid package could help Detroit redefine itself for the twenty-first century.

--Clay Risen