[Current & Culture] The Common Ground Between Good Cars and Good Government

Inheriting the Traditions of Previous Models Makes a Masterpiece
If It Was a Good Policy from the Previous Administration...
Preserving It Is the Mark of a Mature Government

Car models change at regular intervals. Every 5 or 7 years, a new model is announced with changes not only to the body and engine but also to the design, which is called a "full change." In between, a slightly updated model with refined performance and design is released, known as a partial change or "facelift" in English.

Some cars transform completely even with just a facelift, while others show so little change that you wonder what exactly was updated despite a new model being released. Which is better? At first glance, it might seem that more changes are better, but the more expensive the brand, the more they minimize the extent of changes and faithfully preserve the traditions of the previous model. Having loved cars since childhood and driven various brands, I have even switched between facelift and full change models of cars I truly liked. Without exception, those cars were ones that faithfully upheld tradition.

The so-called "Poramfe" group?Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari?and the prestigious Italian automaker Maserati are examples. The coupe "GranTurismo," which can be considered the brand’s face, was released in 2007 and underwent only facelifts until this year, when the second-generation full change model was launched after a staggering 16 years(!). Although it has not yet been sold and there are no test drives, the design shows that the old and new models look like a father and son. The recently announced Porsche Panamera full change is similar. While some people wonder what exactly has changed in the new car, no one is confused about whether it is really a Panamera. It is only by preserving tradition that philosophy and culture can truly be embedded in automobiles.

On the other hand, some companies release new models every time with a disregard for tradition, driven by an obsession that change is absolutely necessary. Although the car name remains the same, the old model suddenly becomes an outdated relic with a broken lineage, and its resale value plummets. This is also a betrayal of customers. Such cars can never embody philosophy or culture. I will not say which companies do this.

Our government has done the same. Every time the administration changes, policies promoted by the previous government are massively discarded. Since national projects often span decades, continuity and consistency are crucial. If a project is clearly flawed, it should be stopped quickly, but halting it just to negate the previous administration is nothing but a huge waste. Economic policies must be agile according to circumstances, and it is understandable that administrative or judicial areas reflect changes in government philosophy, but changing environmental policies on a whim is incomprehensible. The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project is an example. Dams were built, dismantled, rebuilt, and then reversed repeatedly... The fish might as well hold protests.

The recent withdrawal of regulations on single-use products is also suspicious. Did environmental pollution suddenly improve after the government changed? Of course not. If this was done to win votes before an election, it is a gross underestimation of our citizens. Public opinion shows that more people are willing to endure inconvenience to follow eco-friendly policies. A survey conducted by the civic group Korea Federation for Environmental Movements with 1,000 adults found that over 88% of respondents considered single-use waste a serious problem, and more than half opposed the withdrawal of single-use product regulations. So why?

Cars that inherit the strengths of old models are respected as masterpieces. I want to see a mature government that recognizes and maintains good policies even when administrations change.

Lee Jae-ik, Novelist

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.