For Release Sunday, January 25, 2010
Citiwire.net
It may be in bad timing when the Republican Party is now in the ascent and so protective of Ronald Reagan’s legacy to argue that Washington National Airport should remove the former president’s name, but that is exactly what I suggest. The reason is not to slam Reagan, who even president Obama acknowledges “changed the trajectory of America.” Rather a name change is needed to recognize the president who created National Airport–Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I can already hear the shouts from the GOP that such a switch would be nothing more than a naked display of power akin to the constant renaming of places that follows regime change in other, less stable parts of the world. Yet the case for “Roosevelt National Airport,” on merit is compelling. Roosevelt’s efforts were instrumental in every phase of the project–from funding, to site selection, to construction, to design.
Early 20th century, Washington was served by perhaps the worst airfield of any major city. In the 1930s, an airport located near the site of the current Pentagon had one runway and it was intersected by a busy street that had to be closed for takeoffs and landings. From 1926 to 1938, Congress debated building a new airport, but the proposal bogged down and it looked as if the project was dead. That is when Roosevelt took charge. He used the 1938 Civil Aeronautics Act, which transferred authority over civil aviation to the Commerce Department, as the basis for building National Airport. Roosevelt rolled out the plans for the project at a press conference and two months later ground was broken. Roosevelt even dug the first shovel full of dirt. Two years later, he laid the cornerstone on the main terminal. Roosevelt also personally intervened so that the terminal’s design paid homage to President Washington via a stylistic reference to Mount Vernon.
In modern parlance, Roosevelt made National Airport a “shovel-ready project.” In an era before environmental review or organized NIMBY resistance, Roosevelt overcame the one real barrier he faced–Congress. Speaking in 1941 at the airport’s opening, Roosevelt chided Congress on its inaction declaring “there has been a long dispute about the plan for this airport–a dispute that occupied twelve years; and, finally, the present head of the nation [i.e., Roosevelt] had a dream.”
Ironically, Franklin Roosevelt, who “built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields” according to economist Marshall Auerback, has no U.S. airport honoring him. There is just one Roosevelt Airport–a small airfield for St. Eustatius in the Dutch Antilles. Of all thousand airfields that the Roosevelt administration built National was the most significant. Upon its completion, National was a state of the art facility at the doorstep of the capital. It was also the only airport that the President took a direct and personal interest in, even describing as his “dream.” It is Roosevelt’s airport. We need to recognize this fact.
In the process of naming National for Roosevelt, we should not forget Ronald Reagan nor overlook how his name was attached originally to the airport. After the Republican takeover of Congress in the mid 1990s, the “Reagan Legacy Project” emerged. The group aggressively sought to put the ex-president’s name on virtually anything it could. Some efforts failed, such as having Reagan’s image carved into Mount Rushmore, or put on the dime. But in 1998, the Reagan Legacy Project succeeded in attaching Reagan’s name to National Airport. Observers at the time noted that Reagan was not exactly a fan of Washington, which he regularly disparaged as the home to “big government.”
Why then name National Airport for Reagan? Why not, for instance, name Los Angeles International Airport for him. Los Angeles is the city where Reagan found his fame and fortune. Reagan was also a two-term California governor, which launched his run for the White House. LAX is the world’s sixth busiest airport and a giant hub for international travel–not a mostly regional, non-hub facility such as National. Perhaps in a bipartisan swap–similar to the DC voting rights proposal to add a U.S. House seat in the Democratic-dominated District and one in reliably Republican Utah–LAX can be named for Reagan while National is switched to Roosevelt. Unlikely yes, but such a deal would result in both these notable presidents honored in way that does justice to their true legacies.
Robert Lang is the UNVL (University of Nevada – Las Vegas) director of Brookings Mountain West.
Citiwire.net columns are not copyrighted and may be reproduced in print or electronically; please show authorship, credit Citiwire.net and send an electronic copy of usage to webmaster@citiwire.net.
9 Comments
This is the second best idea I’ve heard for National Airport, the first being to strip it of any person’s name, and allow it to once more be the National Airport — devoid of political wrangling or partisan divides. I love Roosevelt as much as the next guy, and clearly see the importance of his presidency on infrastructure in general — and especially the airport — but I’ve always thought that no honoree would be the best way to go. This is a close second, due to the fact that Roosevelt has a tangible connection to the actual facility, unlike Reagan.
The best moment was when the GOP-controlled Congress threatened to withhold WMATA funding until they changed the station stop to reflect the new name (with no extra money included for doing so.) Which cost WMATA money to change the maps, signage, etc. A tad ironic, perhaps?
Interesting post considering what Congress needs now is to lessen the partisanship pervading the institution, not increase it – as the author wisely acknowledges.
When Metro opposed the Reagan name change 9 years ago they cited a cost of $400,000 to change the signs, maps and station names, a cost which has most likely grown since then. Metro faces severe financial hardship this year and is considering rate hikes along with service reductions to bring its budget in line, makes me think the cost of another name change, while welcome by few, would be paid for by the riders who would get nothing in return.
Well argued. I bet this will have some legs. No chance in hell of it happening, but Lang make such a good case that I think people will talk about it. It’s doubly appropriate, because Reagan almost certainly would have opposed construction of the airport back in the 1930s, if he had been a political actor then. It was exactly the kind of big-government infrastructure spending he didn’t like. Roosevelt was right of course. Building infrastructure was good for the people, and good for business.
In the UK we tend to name our airports after the places you find them – Birmingham, Manchester etc – and three of London’s are named after the small villages each has come to dominate. In my time travelling up and down I95 between Princeton and NYC, I often pondered whether Grover Cleveland would look kindly on the motorway service area that bears his name
It might be emotionally gratifying, but fighting to scrape Reagan’s name off National sounds like really hard work. How about let’s rename DC’s Union Station for FDR. He rode many a train in and out of there in every direction. Besides the train station has a more sustainable future than the short runway on the Potomac. Once Dulles is hooked to DC by Metro more flights will transfer there. Meet you for a cold beer at FDR station.
Good idea. FDR deserves more recognition.
This is a dumb, useless idea. I am an unrepentant FDR admirer, old enough to remember when he was President. .But he is already remembered in many ways. But right now, such an idea has nothing to do with the moods, knowledge, needs (and ignorance!) of a population wityh a median age in the ’30s. Why waste time and effort on a fight to displace Reagan with Roosevelt? Think of some idea that can be used to validate active government policy to overcome this recession, and that will be a sufficient tribute to FDR. Help President Obama grasp how FDR dealt with unrepentant enemies (listen to the 1936 Democratic National Convention speech). That will be a tribute.
No comment on changing the name, but to point out a non well publicized fact, the old terminal building at National has a conference room at tarmac level, now nicely restored. It was the facility that FDR used as a boarding lounge when he would fly out of the airport. Visiting it gives you the feeling that FDR had just been there.
Those of us who live in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, region thought that having just one President’s name on the airport was sufficient — the full name of the airport is George Washington Ronald Reagan National Airport. We’d be happy with either National Airport or to return to Washington National Airport.