The selections of New York City and Boston as host cities for the national party conventions are highly suggestive for urban politics. The convening of national officials in these symbolic centers of city life invites discussion about the role of the federal government in urban affairs. Both New York and Boston have benefited greatly from federal largesse in the past – think Fiorello La Guardia’s pipeline to New Deal funds and Boston’s gargantuan Big Dig project – and both rely heavily on federal aid to assist their poor populations. Both cities suffer from problems common to large metropolises that are assumed to need federal solutions. What should the next president be doing to assist cities and their residents?

The Democrats, for their part, failed to tackle this question at their convention. Speakers stuck to broad topics like patriotism and civil rights and steered clear of the relationship between the executive and urban governance. The one exception to this rule, Mayor Martin O’Malley of Baltimore, urged the next president to give more first responder funds to cities and towns across the nation, giving no indication that terrorism is a uniquely urban problem.

This approach, from one perspective, is surprising: Democrats loudly – and frequently – criticize President Bush for lacking an urban policy, charging him with callousness toward urban problems. Senator Kerry, speaking recently to the National Urban League in Detroit, promised an end to the neglect of city residents suffering from gang violence, low educational achievement, and “hopelessness and alienation.” But his urban plan was not discussed at the convention. Mr. Kerry, like other speakers, calculated that there was more to gain from discussing universal themes, like values and patriotism, rather than public housing or inner-city school funding. This calculation, from a political perspective, is correct: urban voters have a low turnout rate at the polls, and those who do vote are reliably Democratic. Swing voters, located in suburbs and exurbs, are not energized by urban issues.

The Republicans meeting in New York will, no doubt, make the same political choice. We will hear more about national themes from national leaders and little or nothing about federal obligations toward urban residents. But this does not mean that the president has nothing to say about urban problems. Nor, despite charges from the Democrats, does it mean that he is disinterested in them. In fact, during the past four years, the Bush administration has developed an urban agenda that is worth taking quite seriously, even if it is not discussed at the convention.

Mr. Bush’s urban agenda is not as bold as high-profile urban initiatives of the past, but this is, in part, what makes it compelling. The goals of his agenda are moderate, and thus achievable; the country has had more than enough of massive and unsuccessful top-down urban experiments. The administration’s urban activities can be divided into two parts: community action, which looks to improve neighborhoods, and individual uplift, which looks to improve individual citizens.

The community action piece of Mr. Bush’s urban agenda takes the form of private/public partnerships. The two most important programs are (1) the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, through which developers (via state grants) are given federal tax incentives to build low-income housing, and (2) the New Markets Program, through which businesses and nonprofits are given federal tax incentives to invest in low-income communities.

Neither of these programs originated with Mr. Bush – LIHTC was enacted in 1986, and New Markets in 2000 – but both have been expanded by his administration. The Department of Housing and Urban Development calls LIHTC “the most important resource for creating affordable housing in the United States,” and it is responsible, at present, for the most new affordable rental production. In 2003, the first New Markets credits were offered by the Treasury Department and the government was deluged with applications: $2.5 billion was made available, and Treasury received requests for close to $26 billion. Since the program is expected to stimulate $15 billion in equity investment during its first few years, it may soon rival the LIHTC in terms of community impact.

The individual uplift piece of Mr. Bush’s urban agenda is equally active. The administration aggressively pursues initiatives to encourage first-time home buying, an effort defended in terms of responsibility, self-sufficiency, and racial empowerment. The No Child Left Behind Act, stripped of its complications, was designed to empower poorly served students in low-income communities. New programs encourage volunteerism, abstinence, and fidelity among federal aid recipients, and counseling programs (many faith-based) seek to discourage criminal and other forms of self-defeating behavior.

These programs, and others like them, are not explicitly urban. They are, however, intended to correct personal habits associated with concentrated poverty and are thus highly relevant to central cities. It is no coincidence that Mr. Bush discusses them regularly before urban organizations, nor is it coincidental that the “Compassionate Capital Fund,” created to assist faith-based service providers, aggressively supports urban organizations. Uplift initiatives have different operating assumptions – some are based on secular notions of responsibility and thrift, some are based on religious sentiments-but they share the underlying theme that life can be dramatically improved by acquiring moral habits.

In contrast to federal urban programs of the past several decades, the president’s urban agenda does not promise federally funded cure-alls or put exclusive emphasis on economic development. Private/public partnerships exist along with programs encouraging individual improvement and community attachment. Neighborhoods matter to this administration, and so does the behavior of people who live in them. We are witnessing the fusion of “third way” urban politics – policies such as the Enterprise Zones of President Clinton-with a commitment to personal reformation. This approach has never been tried in national politics and it is well worth debating.

Unfortunately, this debate won’t be encouraged by the convention in New York, as it wasn’t by the convention in Boston. But it is worth keeping in mind, as we listen to more general remarks about the state of the nation, that the president’s role in urban affairs goes beyond the fight against terrorism. Mr. Bush has initiated an urban program that has coherence and promise – and it’s a shame we won’t hear anything about it from Madison Square Garden.