The Columnist Manifesto

Ford's elimination of 14 factories and 30,000, as reported in today's NYT, is bad news. Auto industry jobs have for decades been the archetype of secure, unionized manufacturing jobs whose salary and benefits could keep working-class households within the American middle class.

Yet the problem of a sustainable blue-collar middle class in this country is much larger than the auto industry, and it's hard to feel sympathy for the industry side of the American auto industry. First of all, it seems that, since the 1970s, they have relentlessly pursued one short term strategy after another while careening inexorably toward long term extinction. The recent return to marketing gas-guzzling beast SUVs is a prime example.

More puzzling to me is the automakers' fatal embrace with the oil companies, the other great 20th century dinosaur of capitalism, which is the only way to explain their massive resistance to developing fuel efficient and more environmentally friendly vehicles. It's not like they're owned by the same holding companies...

What was the most powerful industry was in 19th century America? The one that had the largest impact on the way the country grew and on the lives of ordinary people? The one that employed the largest workforce? The one that caused the most injuries and was involved in the most litigation? The one that had the most political clout?

Yup, it was the railroads. And look at them now.

In the 20th century, the railroads were eclipsed by the oil-automotive complex. In the 20th century, what was good for General Motors was good for the country; but in the 19th, what was good for the Union Pacific Railroad Co. was good for the country.

I think you get the point -- industries die, people suffer, the country moves on. It's that "creative destruction" of the capitalist system. I have a hard time imagining that the automotive and oil companies will still occupy their dominant positions in economic life 100 years from now.

I have to say, one thing that bothers me about the "creative destruction" concept is the way it so easily morphs into the myth of progress: "creative destruction is good; one set of corporate institutions is replaced by a newer, better one once it has outlived its usefulness." Creative destruction leads to different institutions, but better ones? Or even good ones?

Have the automotive and oil industries been good for the country? It's hard for me to say. Having a car is handy. I believe that winning World War II was close to an absolute good, and that was won on the strength of United States industrial power, which was built primarily on the internal combustion engine. On the other hand, we've got greenhouse gases and an economy that depends on unending suburban sprawl which, too, was built on the automobile. Ever since the oil-and-auto industry helped us win WWII, we've been fighting wars for them.

The first war was metaphorical. The oil-and-auto industries didn't drive railroads into obscurity because cars and trucks were a "better" product or more efficient, but because, unlike railroads, they got the roads for their vehicles for free: massive public subsidies were pumped into road-building after World War II, in something close to a conscious effort to transform the U.S. into a car-based suburban society.Capitalism is like that. Industries reach and maintain dominance, not by playing "free market" better than their competitors, but by playing political power better.

But there have been real wars too. Nations have always fought wars to promote their leading industries. One of the reasons the Iraq war is so stupid is that the oil-and-auto industry is so 20th century. If the Middle East had no oil, our government would be about as interested in that region as it now is in Africa. In 50 years, look for our wars to be fought on behalf of Microsoft and the pharmaceutical industry -- probably in third world countries that give sanctuary to intellectual property "pirates."