Our memories of Dwight Eisenhower as president tend to be pretty pastoral. An older fella, semi-retired soldier, who liked golf and sipping cocktails around the patio. The ultimate moderate country club Republican. But Eisenhower also unleashed a revolution in commerce that cemented America's place as the world's financial powerhouse.

On June 29, 1956, Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid-Highway Act which authorized the interstate highway system that later bore his name. Eisenhower didn't invent the concept of interstate highways; he merely pushed implementation through Congress after 30 years of talk but little action. Now, the system is more than 42,700 miles long and taken for granted as one of the interior systems that makes American production go.

A trillion "person miles" are carried on the system each year, a figure that would provide around-the-world trips for 37 million people. The interstate highways have returned more than $6 in economic productivity for each $1 of cost, and they've been paid for mainly by its users in the form of taxes on fuel. The system carries the goods that make America the land of the consumer.

As Al Gore and George Bush enter the long, slow summer months of campaigning, there appears to be little interest among Silicon Alley types in this year's Presidential election. We're too busy building businesses, seeking or placing capital, luring employees, and buying stuff online. And frankly, there's not much difference between the candidates -- both are lifelong political insiders, sons of big-time party leaders who raised them in the nicest homes in the best neighborhoods. Both candidates turn their regional accents on and off at will. And neither seems likely to lead a revolution. [Disclosure: the writer is co-chair of Silicon Alley for Gore, and has contributed to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic National Congressional Committee.]

Of course, there are significant differences: abortion rights, gun control, environmental protection, Social Security. But in the lazy early days of this second American century, we turn our eyes more and more toward Wall Street, and less and less toward Washington. You get the feeling that if Bill Clinton was legally able to run again, he'd coast with around 60 percent of the vote, and no one would much care. Political apathy in New York new media circles runs much higher than the Nasdaq in springtime.

Well, wake up Silicon Alley. There is one potential national issue just waiting to be adopted by either candidate and either party. I speak of a national infrastructure policy to rival Eisenhower's interstate highway system. The United States needs a unified national effort at the Federal level to sustain the phenomenal growth in technology and networks we've been privileged to lead thus far.

We're in danger of falling farther behind. Europe is clearly the leader in wireless networking, and Japan is catching up fast, converting teens and young adults into a cadre of obsessed wireless users. I haven't even mentioned broadband, or should I say "cable," "the last mile," or "networked homes." This remains the province of legal monopolies, regional monoliths slow to innovate but quick to protect their gatekeeper roles. I've been on a waiting list for home DSL since last July. Enough said.

And then there's America Online-Time Warner, which has shown alarming signs of abandoning the open network stance it took back when it didn't have an entree to a cable system. The Feds are wasting their time on yesterday's company, Microsoft, and should be giving serious anti-trust attention to this media giant [Disclosure: the writer and the mutual funds he's invested in hold stock in AOL).

Simply put, we need a president to take charge of these developments -- not simply to help create regulation, but with the political will to make sure the U.S. has the best, most modern and open network architecture on the ground, in the air and around the world. Someone to pick up the telephone -- LBJ-like -- and say to Michael Armstrong or Steve Case: "Son, this is your President and I'm here to tell you what you're going to do for your country."

Anyone who believes that smart venture capitalists, or bright entrepreneurs, or savvy investment bankers are the reason the Internet has swept through society is delusional (or inhaling). The reason the Net has become an integrated part of the landscape is because of its very structure and openness, which empowers people to communicate. And for the Internet-backed boom of commercial and social growth to continue, we need the network of the future to be open, fairly-priced, and easy to access.

There is a single power in this land capable of putting a national infrastructure policy into effect -- and guess what, it's not some incestuous "self regulating" corporate committee of telecommunications burghers. It's a strong president who understands that infrastructure is vital to America's role in the new digital landscape, and who possesses the skills to sell it to the people.

* Tom Watson is co-founder and managing editor of atNewYork.com.