"Moral Issues" and Ugly Cities

From the Daily Howler:

"HIATT’S REGENCY: . . . how powdered—how perfumed—is this fine fellow? On November 1, laughter rang through the HOWLER’s great halls as Hiatt revealed what was on his mind one day before our election:

HIATT (11/1/04): Here's a piece of advice for the president who will be chosen tomorrow: Take a walk around your White House.
Yes, both candidates have lived in Washington for some time now. But how closely has either of them looked at the core of their city in the past few years—at how ugly it has become?

What was on the great satrap’s mind? Iraq? “Moral issues?” The president’s character? Lowered wages for America’s parents? No, Hiatt wanted the newly-elected president to note how ugly his city had become:

HIATT: After they shut Pennsylvania Avenue to traffic, you could still drive past the White House on E Street. No more. After they fenced off the pleasant alley between the White House and the Treasury, you could still stroll down the sidewalk on the Treasury's east side. No more. Not so long ago you could climb the steps on the west side of the Capitol, sled down the hill beneath them, wander undisturbed back up the hill and across to the Library of Congress. No more, no more, no more.

Washington’s security fences were ugly, and they interfered with Hiatt’s strolls. Fiercely, he went to the heart of the problem: “[S]omeone has to say enough.”

The Big Day was coming, and Hiatt spoke—whoever won should make D.C. look better."

Not acquainted with Lord Hiatt myself, I will defer to the judgment of the Daily Howler, that redoubtable brigadier for truth and justice (seriously), as to the state of his character and complexion. But methinks that urban allure and its antithesis are no minor matters. While those of royal or gentlemanly stature might well possess more time and inclination to reflect on the finer points of urban aesthetics, ugly cities affect the huddled masses just as much as the bluebloods.

The instance of uglification noted by Hiatt has resulted from the tireless labours of our permanent war state. We well know that the pursuit of security is that without which our other efforts are futile. But when security is elevated to the top of our quotidian concerns, it is all too easy for the powers that be to encroach on our vaunted liberty while claiming to be engaged in enforcing it.

I will leave to others the task of speculating on the exact effects of the visible effluvia of homeland security. I will note only that public morale is indubitably affected by the built environment. If morale is not a moral issue, I must be misreading my Merriam-Webster. And that ongoing affront to our senses known as urban blight, though perhaps less quantifiable than fluctuations in wages, should be at the forefront of political discussion. Though informed opinion differs on how to interpret economic indicators and enhance economic performance, leading urbanists are well-nigh unanimous on the necessary steps for revival of our cityscapes. (about which much more to come.) On most moral and economic, nay, most political matters, government's role is subject to debate. But it is becoming more and more clear that government got us into this urban mess, and it must get us out.