At the time, I was in the bailout-supporting minority because a collapse of the car industry would have devastated an already ailing Midwest. Enterprises dependent on the auto companies would have come crashing down. A White House report last week concluded that one million jobs would have been lost if the government had not intervened, and some estimates last year went much higher.

The decision to lose one of our core manufacturing sectors would also have been irreversible — a severe enough threat that even Bush, the staunch free-marketer, wouldn’t let it happen. That’s why the Obama administration is bragging a bit about the 55,000 auto jobs added since June 2009. “The auto rescue is a great example of how the administration’s policies helped lead to a turnaround in the industrial base of our country,” said White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who met with a group of columnists last week. The arguments against the bailout were predictable but not unreasonable. Many suspected that government would inevitably make politicized choices: plant closings determined by political influence and Obama favorites on company boards pursuing pet administration projects at the expense of sound business judgments.

This didn’t happen. Even though the administration lost one fight when Congress voted to protect the interests of the auto dealers, the White House let the automakers behave like private companies.