Is there room in the market for another print publication? Image from Flikr.com.

Did I just read this New York Times commentary correctly? It says a new quarterly magazine called National Affairs started yesterday (Monday). David Brooks says that National Affairs magazine is meant to continue the work of The Public Interest, a magazine that shut down in 2005.

Brooks writes that National Affairs magazine aims to occupy “the bloody crossroads where social science and public policy meet matters of morality, culture and virtue.” Whew, I am glad they are not in this to make money. The newspaper, magazine and general printed publication industry has been steadily tanking for years — that is, until the recession began, when it took a sharp nosedive.

The one that came before

Apparently mortgage loan restructuring was not an option for The Public Interest, which lasted 40 years, from 1965 to 2005. The Public Interest Closed when the last of the original editors retired. Brooks writes:

Their idea was that the great ideological clashes between socialism and capitalism were in the past. In the age of consensus what was needed was a policy journal that would pragmatically weigh costs and benefits.

It really is a lovely, peaceful idea. Unfortunately, I think humans have shown that they will always be politically polarized. Politicians will always use disdain for the opposing party as a unifying element. But the people running National Affairs magazine have more faith than I do, apparently.

What is at this crossroads?

According to Brooks, the first essay in National Affairs magazine focuses on how we can tackle the recession. Brooks writes:

Creating a new and sustainable middle-class social contract isn’t only an accounting matter. It’s also a question of responsibility.

He says this essay states that the nation’s leaders have made a series of “lavishly unaffordable promises.” Brooks also points out the flaw in logic behind the first essay in National Affairs magazine. The essay says the nation’s leaders should skip special interests and hand power directly to the people. However, Brooks points out this strategy was implemented in California, and now that state’s budget is a total disaster.

Thoughts on National Affairs magazine

With newspapers and magazines shutting down at alarming rates, I think it’s a very bold move for editor Yuval Levin and his colleagues to give National Affairs magazine a shot. Perhaps they should get one of those motivational posters that says “you never fail until you stop trying.”

After all, its predecessor, The Public Interest, didn’t seem to make a whole lot of progress in shaping public policy. In its 20th anniversary edition, James Q. Wilson wrote:

At root, in almost every area of public concern, we are seeking to induce persons to act virtuously, whether as schoolchildren, applicants to public assistance, would-be lawbreakers, or voters and public officials.

Is there no way to control spending?

Brooks points out that we’re not at a point, as a country, where we can decide whether we should control spending, we must decide how to control spending. After explaining all of the catastrophes that resulted from direct democracy in California, Brooks says concentrating power among public-policy professionals doesn’t work either.

So what’s the answer, Mr. Brooks? Apparently, he says, National Affairs magazine’s job is to figure this out. Good luck!

Don’t count on it

Have you ever heard of “planned obsolescence?” Essentially, mass-produced products are designed to either become obsolete or non-functional after a certain amount of use. This is very useful to the party that controls the means of production, as it creates a never-ending stream of demand for their products after things fall apart.

Things are falling apart now, America

Planned obsolescence has historically played a huge role in the American automobile industry. General Motors, one of America’s “Big Three” auto makers, has consistently operated under the principle of “What’s good for GM is good for America.” While this may have been appropriate during World War II, when GM’s involvement in the defense effort provided many jobs for hard-working civilians, it is an antiquated idea now. What’s “good for GM” may no longer be good for the American people.

For a lighter look at planned obsolescence in action, check out this classic 1940 short film, “Hired!” This is actually Part 2 of the film, but you’ll get the idea. The disposable punch line comes around at about 8:04 – these auto salesmen are hoping to sell a gentleman his next 10 cars. You’d need a heck of a fast cash advance for that!

Consumers are wiser now

They’ll buy sturdier, more economical foreign cars. And despite the current call for greener vehicles with lower emissions, America has taken a rather lackluster approach to this over the years. Don’t expect this to change anytime soon, as building big trucks and SUVs is the “American way” that has enabled the CEOs of America’s big auto makers to become obscenely rich.

The CEOs will take down America to save their own skins

As film director Michael Moore recently said on “Larry King Live,” the Big Three CEOs have no real interest in the capitalist ideal. “Go Capitalism! Free Market! Free Enterprise!” Really? It seems that the handout you’re crying to the government for - $25 BILLION – is their own Socialist safety net. Is what’s good for GM still good for America?

Perhaps not.

You’d think companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler that were losing money hand over foot would make the right kind of adjustments into order to right the ship. Right?

Wrong. Mass layoffs are imminent, yet the Big Three CEOs refuse to work with the government for the benefit of the American people. Didn’t Spock say that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?”

Capitalism doesn’t work if it means the rich get rich and the poor get trampled

When individuals are ruled by impersonal, irrational abstractions that make up a capitalist system in its purest form, the little people lose. People will be laid off because the CEOs don’t want to give up this kind of money:

• GM CEO Rick Wagoner: $5,000,000 per annum total salary, with the potential to receive a $15,000,000 golden parachute
• Ford CEO Alan Mulally:$22,000,000 earnings the past year
• Chrysler GEO Robert Nardelli: $22,800,000 total earnings

They are being paid this kind of money while workers are being laid off. While they are begging the government for a $25,000,000,000 handout. Cash advance loans, but without that “loan” part written into the deal.

How much money are the companies losing while CEOs sop up cash?

According to Moore when he was on with Larry King:

• Ford: $2,000,000,000
• GM: $39,000,000,000
• Chrysler (not mentioned by Moore): $662,000,000 in the second quarter of 2008 alone!

The end of capitalism as we know it?

And I think, really, what we’re seeing now — with them, with the banks — we’re seeing the end of capitalism. The end of capitalism as we know it and I say good riddance. It hasn’t helped the people or the planet.” – Michael Moore on Larry King Live, Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

Are you listening, government? We can’t give $25,000,000,000 to men who will use it to give themselves great bonuses, vacations, bigger jets and biggers yachts. We have to take a stand now.

Mr. Moore suggests that Obama step in as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during the Great Depression and WWII. He told the automakers what to do: build what America needed. Today, if the automakers can employ their workforce in the service of bettering mass transit, hybrid vehicles and more things that will help improve this country’s infrastructure, we’ll be on the road to recovery.

That’s a cash advance in the direction of a modified form of Socialism that the people of this nation can use. A strong nation is what we need. By repairing the economy and our infrastructure, we will achieve. That’s the American way.