Decision Points

Could George W. Bush bring political diversity to urban America?

Bush has largely stayed out of the public eye since leaving the White House nearly two years ago. The 43rd President became a villain in the eyes of urban America for his perceived mishandling of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. [I’ve argued that the bad blood between Bush and urban America started much earlier, in February 2000, when Bush made the bizarre decision to speak at Bob Jones University in South Carolina.] Is there a way for Bush to repair his injured image in urban America?

Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush were also perceived to be hostile to residents of major cities, yet neither man could ultimately change that negative perception after they left office. Reagan resented being seen as tone-deaf to the problems faced by residents of our cities, yet Alzheimer’s disease prevented him from having the opportunity to make amends to those he unintentionally alienated. As for Bush 41, he may have felt that his affiliation with Reagan and the lingering controversy over the late Lee Atwater’s actions in the 1988 Presidential election would have made any substantive effort to reach out to urban America pointless. 

Perhaps Bush 43 can accomplish what Bush 41 and Reagan could not. Perhaps he can atone for his perceived sins against urban America by becoming a vigorous advocate for GOP outreach, picking up where his father’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the late Jack Kemp, left off.

Prior to Bush’s ill-advised stop at Bob Jones University, I was inspired by his words. Bush talked about those who did not share in the prosperity of the late-1990s, those who attended failing public schools, those who lived in households where the closest neighbors were poverty and hopelessness. He spoke of a compassionate conservatism, a conservatism that provided the disenfranchised with a hand up as opposed to a handout. Bush’s 1999 speeches weren’t about a rigid, hyper-partisan conservatism that blamed Democrats and liberals for every problem in the country; he spoke of a pragmatic, pro-active conservatism that would work to make the American Dream a reality for those who questioned whether America was really all that exceptional.

A combination of bad advice on the campaign trail and questionable decision-making as President led to Bush’s last name becoming a four-letter word in urban America. Yet, it’s still possible for his name to be praised one day.

I’d love to see Bush become urban America’s lobbyist—a forceful voice for public education reform and the fostering of a climate for small businesses to prosper in urban neighborhoods; a supporter of efforts to elect candidates in major American cities who vow to fight the entrenched forces that stand in the way of quality schools and safe streets; a caustic critic of those on the right who regard urban America as a lost cause unmeritorious of the GOP’s attention.

In the eyes of urban America, there was no compassion to Bush’s conservatism, just crony capitalism and callousness toward citizens in crisis. Yet this image can be adjusted. Why shouldn’t Bush use his talents to bring us closer to the vision he espoused in the summer and fall of 1999?

Bush would earn the respect of those across the ideological spectrum if he became urban America’s advocate. If he were to use his clout to compel the GOP to focus on issues facing our major cities, he could win hearts and minds—and his party could win votes in regions long dominated by Democrats.  

I think back to the summer and fall of 1999, and how motivated I was by Bush’s speeches. I believed that Bush would lead the GOP to a new era, one in which the party would be competitive in urban regions, one in which those who had supported Democrats in previous elections would find themselves attracted to a positive, inclusive Republican message and policies that promoted prosperity. Can Bush recapture that spirit?

I believe he can. I believe he must—and in doing so, he’ll regain urban America’s trust.