Keeping the Urban Agenda on the Agenda
March 10th, 2008
In December 2006, back when the ‘08 presidential candidates were all potential, City Hall editorialized in favor of having a New Yorker or two in the presidential race. Like so many others, we expected that Rudolph Giuliani and Hillary Clinton would at this point be in better shape for the nominations of their respective parties. We thought the path to an independent run by Michael Bloomberg would be much more certain. And we were even willing to still entertain the notion—already past ridiculous at that point—that George Pataki might test the waters instead of fading as thoroughly into oblivion as he has.
Bloomberg was right in much of the sentiment he expressed as he finally opted out of the race: the urban agenda should have a place in this year’s presidential election. Having one, two, three or even four of these people in the race, we assumed, would put it there. By running, they could have helped pull the debate toward topics important to residents of New York and the nation’s other major cities. More homeland security and transportation funding, a re-calibrated approach to the war on drugs and crime prevention—these should finally be part of decisive discussions.
After all, 1 in 14 Americans lives in the New York metropolitan area. To have at least as much attention paid to our needs and concerns as is paid to the 1 in 100 Americans living in Iowa would make some sense.
Of course, Clinton and Giuliani had to focus on national issues in their races. Healthcare, taxes, the Iraq war—positions on these were rightfully central to all the presidential candidates’ platforms. But considering how many Americans live and work in cities, it is hard to understand why the problems and concerns of day-to-day urban life could not have found a place amid talk of ethanol subsidies and border fences.
And maybe Clinton and Giuliani could have spent more time discussing specifics of how each contributed to the current success of New York, instead of actively distancing himself from the city and reinforcing many people’s image of the Big Apple as a modern day Gomorrah. The city and state may not be in perfect shape, but there is something, especially in the five boroughs, that is working, and Clinton and Giuliani could have done more to explain to America just what that is. As that editorial a year and a half ago pointed out, “the country would be unrecognizable if it were to experience the level of economic growth and overall reinvigoration that has defined the city in the last thirteen years.”
The candidates left in the race would do well to remember that. The candidates who have left the race—as well as all those in New York who supported them—have an obligation to help them see the light.
Bloomberg was right in much of the sentiment he expressed as he finally opted out of the race: the urban agenda should have a place in this year’s presidential election. Having one, two, three or even four of these people in the race, we assumed, would put it there. By running, they could have helped pull the debate toward topics important to residents of New York and the nation’s other major cities. More homeland security and transportation funding, a re-calibrated approach to the war on drugs and crime prevention—these should finally be part of decisive discussions.
After all, 1 in 14 Americans lives in the New York metropolitan area. To have at least as much attention paid to our needs and concerns as is paid to the 1 in 100 Americans living in Iowa would make some sense.
Of course, Clinton and Giuliani had to focus on national issues in their races. Healthcare, taxes, the Iraq war—positions on these were rightfully central to all the presidential candidates’ platforms. But considering how many Americans live and work in cities, it is hard to understand why the problems and concerns of day-to-day urban life could not have found a place amid talk of ethanol subsidies and border fences.
And maybe Clinton and Giuliani could have spent more time discussing specifics of how each contributed to the current success of New York, instead of actively distancing himself from the city and reinforcing many people’s image of the Big Apple as a modern day Gomorrah. The city and state may not be in perfect shape, but there is something, especially in the five boroughs, that is working, and Clinton and Giuliani could have done more to explain to America just what that is. As that editorial a year and a half ago pointed out, “the country would be unrecognizable if it were to experience the level of economic growth and overall reinvigoration that has defined the city in the last thirteen years.”
The candidates left in the race would do well to remember that. The candidates who have left the race—as well as all those in New York who supported them—have an obligation to help them see the light.
