Urban Issues aren't National Issues?

Really important short article in today's NY times by Clyde Haberman about the conspicuous absence of "urban issues" in the Presidential debates. Haberman writes:

The candidates have now held 25 or so debates without talking about urban issues.

... For sidestepping matters of direct concern to more than 80 percent of the population — people living in metropolitan areas — this has to be some kind of record.

The grievance... is glaring this time around because of the large number of candidates who you’d think would have cities and their suburbs high in their minds. Look at them: former mayors of New York City and Cleveland, a senator from New York, a former community organizer out of Chicago.

Sure, they have discussed terrorism, health care, the economy, immigration and other matters that affect cities as much as the rest of the country. But what about basic urban and suburban concerns like housing, transportation, crime, education, Medicaid costs, homelessness, crumbling infrastructure?

There has been barely a word...

As a city-dwelling pastor, I'd noticed the absence, too.

But the absence is perhaps not due to the ignorance of the national candidates. Interestingly, watch a few of the videos posted on mayortv.com and you don't get a sense that there's a consensus on what "urban issues" really are these days. All of the mayors talk a bit about "federal investment" in cities... but each of them talk about that investment differently... for block grants, housing, water and infrastructure, education? There's an interesting lack of consensus on one or two "defining" urban issues.

I think confusion is not the only thing compromising the political discourse. There's a frustrating lack of action on the grass roots level--at least here in New York. In the past, Democrats were the champions of the cities and urban issues, but New York--chock full of Democrats--doesn't seem to have much of a vision or a stomach for the hard work of making New York livable for all its residents.

This has got to be, in part, due to the new wave of post-civil-rights-era, city-dwelling Democrats--those who have been fueling urban renaissances in New York and all over the country--moving into urban areas for things like "diversity," "walkability," "access to the arts, food, and culture." These newly urban Democrats are liberal, but not into politicizing their urban living--perhaps just living here is advocacy enough?

I'm waiting for a new generation of urban politician to re-frame some of the old questions. First, "urban" is--and is not--code for "racial." I want a politician to acknowledge both realities--that cities are still where many blacks and Hispanics live so they are disproportionately affected by inattention to urban issues. But I also want a politician to address how cities are the epicenters for non-exclusively racial issues like environmental policy, energy use, health care, and education funding. Urban areas are also places for innovation in public-private partnerships--letting the market combine with good social policy to shape how communities can be re-developed for long-term health, diversity, and sustainability.

I'm looking for a politician to show whether urban re-development and subsequent gentrification can lead to more livable cities for all? I want a politician to address whether a white investment banker who is a registered Democrat SHOULD buy a brownstone in Harlem... or not. I want to hear someone take on the question of whether the radical increase in housing costs in New York is good (increased tax base, more attractive for business development)--or bad (low and middle income folks squeezed)--for the overall health of the city. I want to hear someone talk about why an activist mayor like Corey Booker of Newark supports school vouchers... and whether it's not time for more Democrats to get on board that issue? I want to know why it took a Republican mayor in New York to come up with a vision for environmental health and community development?

I suspect the reason that none of the candidates is talking about "urban issues" is that no one really knows what urban issues are anymore. The landscape of American urbanism and urban politics is changing... I wonder if any of these candidates have kept up...

****

So, here is a glimpse of what some of the candidates who have made statements about "urban policy" have said. At least by the looks of the major candidates' websites, only Barack Obama has made urban policy a center of his campaign. As a former community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that makes a bit of sense. Enjoy perusing these resources:
Barack Obama
Article on Obama from The Next American City
San Francisco Chronicle article comparing Clinton, Obama, and Edwards
Giuliani has a long record as a mayor; it's documented here
The Pew Forum on Religion and Politics has a comparison of the major candidates views: these two are on "poverty" and "education"