A consensus is forming about the need to provide some sort of financial bailout for the nation’s auto industry.

Monday, the Bush administration jumped aboard the effort, accepting the argument that the United States cannot afford to see General Motors and perhaps other major automakers fold.

However, the White House says an additional bailout, other than the one previously approved for the financial industry, is necessary to provide that assistance.

Members of Congress are returning to Washington this week for a lame duck session. While there is strong pressure to provide financial aid to the auto industry, there is also resistance.

And this resistance comes with one big, unavoidable question:

If Washington provides billions in assistance to car makers, then what?

Critics — including those who are sympathetic to the idea of a bailout — worry that giving money to Detroit may be the equivalent of sending it down the proverbial rathole. Will billions in financial assistance save the industry, or merely delay its demise?

Automakers are struggling — as are most economic sectors — with slow consumer spending, compounded by severely tightened credit. Even people who want to buy a new car may have trouble obtaining the necessary financing.

But the industry’s problems run much deeper than that. Healthy companies are structured to withstand such downturns. America’s automobile manufacturers have been slow to innovate and adapt. In addition to a credit crisis, these companies also have a leadership crisis.

And that’s the rub. Without a new direction, and the managerial vision to achieve it, does it really do any good to heap financial assistance on the auto industry? What guarantees are there that this money will go toward revamping these companies in meaningful ways, so that they can thrive and compete?

Unfortunately, Congress may produce a bailout just because it’s the politically expedient thing to do. There is no particular reason to believe Washington, which has failed to demand better from the auto industry in the past, will come up with improved leadership either.

And even if Congress recognizes the need for automakers to adapt, does Washington know how to go about that process? Innovation isn’t exactly a hallmark of the federal government.

Ideally, a free-market system would step in to this process, and new, more aggressive companies would arise to challenge outmoded ones. But considering how much it would cost to build a car company from scratch, that’s not likely to happen.

The only probable replacements for automakers are those that already exist — overseas. And unless there is a bailout that includes a commitment from U.S. car companies to prepare for the future, these foreign competitors will inevitably fill the void.