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.

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.

American suburbs are increasingly diverse places and the economic engines that drive metropolitan areas, which are the key to the nation’s prosperity. Suburban voters provide the decisive margins in congressional and presidential elections, including for Obama, who won big in the formerly Republican-leaning suburbs outside Denver, Minneapolis, Detroit, Orlando and Washington, DC. And suburban lawmakers, like their constituents, will be the “swing vote” in shaping his national agenda. If he cannot sell it just beyond the city lines, then he cannot sell it, period.

But we should not view the suburbs in political opposition but as part of a larger metropolitan area. That means treating cities and suburbs as seamless, synergistic wholes. As the Brookings Institution has documented in its Blueprint for American Prosperity, focusing more federal resources on metro regions and their considerable assets is essential to the nation’s ability to compete in a global economy.

That is why Obama should ensure that his urban advisors adopt a broader metro focus by creating an advisory council that includes suburban members as partners.

This is not a petulant call for pandering to vote-rich regions. If anything, bringing the suburbs in forcefully—and officially—into the administration would improve Obama’s chances of building support for the nation’s cities. Helping cities and suburbs realize that their futures are inextricably–and now desperately–tied will go a long way toward promoting powerful regional coalitions for mutually beneficial projects.

So far, in his pronouncements and appointments, including those of Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr. as the White House Director of Urban Affairs and Derek Douglas as a special assistant to the president for urban affairs, Obama has sent less than reassuring signals to suburbanites. The locus of their professional and personal lives, as well as Obama’s, has been decidedly urban. In citing statistics about the need to boost cities, Obama erred–statistically and symbolically–in a way that seemed to leave the suburbs from the metro equation. Despite his assertion, 80 percent of the American people do not live in urban areas or cities. That is number living in metro areas. And almost two-thirds of the metro population locates in the suburbs.

This is not petty semantics. The misused data reflects a wide-spread misunderstanding of the suburbs’ role in American life–which, like it or not, is enormous. And the suburbs demand for more attention–including more federal stimulus funds–is not merely parochial pleading from prosperous people who don’t know real economic pain. They do.

Based on any number of indicators, from the rate of home foreclosures and poverty to a Hofstra University poll that showed 40 percent of suburbanites “living pay check to pay check,” the pain beyond the city lines is being felt more profoundly than ever before. In fact, according to a myth-busting Brookings study, the suburbs are home to more poor people than their central cities. Add to that the concerns about congestion and pollution, and the suburbs bear no resemblance to the stereotypes that have fed public misperceptions.

By bringing suburbia onto his metro radar, Obama can help himself politically and save the suburbs from a downward spiral that can only lead to more economic stagnation and social dysfunction. The suburbs cannot afford to simply perpetuate old problems–the sprawl, congestion and pollution–that reflect abysmal failures of planning and political will.

Instead of spending more on suburban road widening and extensions, a strong suburban advisory group would urge that Obama use his bully pulpit on behalf of expanding suburban bus and rail lines. Instead of digging up undeveloped land, suburban leaders would advise Obama to promote the replacement or expansion of sewers in suburban downtowns. The additional sewage capacity will allow for higher rise residences and businesses that could be more affordable and exciting and consume less energy.

Overall, Obama should advocate that suburbia not only get its fair share of federal funds, stimulus and otherwise, but that the money serve as a catalyst for change–for developing more walkable, environmentally friendly and energy efficient communities. Obama’s watchword should be “sustainability,” in city and suburb, now and in the future. And he should literally watch his words: It’s not urban or suburban policy he should talk about, but the more inclusive metro one.

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.

A recent story in the Washington Post noted that Democrat Barack Obama is the first big city politician to run as a major party presidential candidate in many years. Yes, Senator Obama comes from Chicago–the so-called “Second City” (really the third city behind New York and Los Angeles). Yet his Republican rival John McCain lives in Phoenix, now America’s fifth largest U.S. city having just passed Philadelphia in population. While Phoenix is more famous for golf courses and subdivisions than urban neighborhoods, McCain in fact lives in a luxury high rise in the upscale and highly citified Camelback district.

Both presidential candidates are technically big city guys. But a better way to label Senators McCain and Obama is “big metro guys.” Chicago and Phoenix also rank among the largest metropolitan areas. In this way, the two candidates typify a nation now dominated by urban regions. Just over half (53 percent) of all Americans live in metro areas that exceed one million residents. As Brookings Institution research has shown, the metros dominate the country’s economy, accounting for an enormous share of its technology, venture capital, and advanced services. They are also the places where the U.S. connects to the global economy via major sea ports and hub airports.

Were just the big metros to vote, the presidential race would be a rout every time. The Democrats dominate major urban regions. In an analysis done earlier this year, the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech found that Democrat John Kerry won–often by very lopsided margins–the votes in three quarters of the nation’s biggest and most globally networked metros. And even in the regions that Kerry lost, he almost always prevailed in the core county. For instance, he battled Republican President (and former Texas governor) George W. Bush to a draw in Dallas County. Kerry blew out Bush in the city of Dallas—the place where Bush plans to retire.

But the Democratic vote in big metros is counterbalanced by Republican ballots cast in rural areas, small towns, and exurbs. In the last two elections, the Democrats counted on the votes from cities and inner suburbs while Republicans appealed to the regional fringe and beyond. The result has been a near even split in the electorate. The Republicans have won by running up overwhelming numbers in non-metro America while picking up just enough votes among suburbanites and even city dwellers to eke out narrow victories. The trick has been to energize the conservative rural base by running against big city culture and lifestyle, while not alienating typically more moderate suburbanites.

But this strategy may have run its course primarily because big metropolitan areas are growing much faster than small towns. They are also becoming dramatically more diverse. The new destination for immigrants is not found on the old gritty streets of lower Manhattan, but in the postwar suburbs that surround all big cities. In the process, the ring of “first suburbs” is now more cosmopolitan and urbanized.

The total Democratic-voting space in the emerging metropolis has likewise expanded and now reaches even recently built suburbs. Consider the case of metropolitan Washington, DC. Close-in suburbs such as Arlington County, Virginia have long been solidly Democratic areas. But a once Republican mature suburban county such as Fairfax has shifted from supporting Bush in 2000 to voting strongly Democratic in recent state-wide elections. Even Virginia’s exurban counties such as Loudoun and Prince William have been swept by dramatic demographic change and are now home to an increasing diverse and Democratic-friendly population. The Democratic invasion of Northern Virginia shifted the state from solidly red to potentially blue. A similar process is playing out in other rapidly urbanizing red states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina.

The Republicans now face a dilemma. If they run hard to their mostly white rural base, they risk turning off increasingly diverse and Democratic-leaning suburbanites. However, if Republicans court big metro voters by dropping their message of small town values, their base vote may fall off. In 2008, the Republicans clearly believe that they can squeeze out one more victory under the old model. The choice of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee sealed the deal. This small town mayor turned governor uses her experience growing up in Wasilla, Alaska–ironically part of greater Anchorage–to prove her fitness for office. The Republican National Convention even featured former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani talking up small town values while skewering Barack Obama for his supposed cosmopolitan big city ways.

Maybe John McCain can somehow pull out one more win for small town America. But the odds look increasing long. More importantly, no future Republican nominee is likely to try another full-on, rural-based run at the White House. Or to repeat this autumn’s theme of rural places as “real” and “pro American,” using coded language to imply that big metropolitan areas are illegitimate and anti American. We are a metro nation and we do have a common stake in the success of all places–from largest cities to the smallest hamlets. Unless the Republican party grasps that, and adapts its policy approaches and messages accordingly, it will risk a long journey in the political wilderness.

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.