David Bozeman

Stay On Top of Electoral Manipulation

By David Bozeman

2/22/10

After being pummeled in '06 and '08, Republicans are regaining their footing. With the potential for huge gains this November — including the possibility of retaking the House and Senate — the base isn't going to let anything as mundane as electoral manipulation dampen their spirits.

It is not merely the registering-of-the-dead style of which ACORN has been accused that should keep Republicans alert. Open legislation, primarily by Democrats, and court rulings could add millions of new voters to the rolls and change the dynamics of elections well into the future.

A new bill before Congress, the Voter Registration Modernization Act, would require all state to allow voters to register online by 2012. Arizona pioneered the practice, which other states are considering, and numerous others, including the electorally vital Michigan, New Jersey and New York are debating their own pending legislation.

Universal voter registration is a vital plank in the liberal agenda. According to WorldNetDaily.com, Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) and Representative John Conyers (MI), both Democrats, are planning to introduce a universal voter registration bill. Details are sketchy, but author John Fund (How the Obama Administration Plans to Undermine Our Elections) writes that Obama and the Democrats would like to see every eligible citizen automatically and permanently registered, using DMV records, income tax returns, welfare rolls and unemployment lists. Putting it under federal control, according to the left's reasoning, would streamline the process and reduce instances of local corruption (and one always hears of 'convenience' for Internet-generation voters). According to The Nation, between two and four millions people were denied their voting rights in 2008. Editor Katrina Heuvel and other leftists routinely tout the 90% registration rates in Canada, France, Venezuela, Russia and other progressive nations.

In the U.S., the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court recently cleared the way for inmates to vote from prison, ruling that a denial of their rights (in Washington state) is unfair to those groups with higher incarceration rates.

One might ask why the concern with bringing new voters into the process. The concern is less with numbers than with mindset. While conservatives and liberals cherish voting as a fundamental right, conservatives tend to stress the inherent responsibility to make reasoned, informed decisions on what is best for the community, state or nation. The Michigan online law, by contrast, would reportedly allow procrastinators and the idle to register up to 4pm the day before an election. Spur-of-the-moment voters also enjoy same-day registration in nine other states, including Iowa, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Are these really the most informed, passionate citizens among us? Yet through them, Democrats seek to swell their numbers and seal permanent majorities. While conservatives certainly work within electoral realities, they tend to recognize voters not as blocs but as autonomous citizens with a distinct duty to keep their governments small and accountable.

Streamlining and simplifying the electoral process is fine, but not to cater to the civic-ally lazy. If registering and voting takes a little extra effort, then maybe citizens will give each vote the weight it deserves. Our republic need not buckle beneath the will of the uninformed if we insist that electoral reform serve the needs of an enlightened citizenry and not replace it.

What's In a Name and Why It Matters

By David Bozeman

2/10/10

After a recent editorial, a county Republican chairperson questioned my use of the word 'Democratic' as in 'Democratic Party,' noting that she had seen and heard 'Democrat' Party about as often. Which one, she wondered, was correct.

When writing the piece, I was aware that our liberal friends hate the term 'Democrat Party,' but I chose, if not political correctness, then politeness over an unnecessary swipe. Google and most dictionaries agree, citing as one of the two major American political parties the Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh is probably the most famous offender for leaving off the 'ic,' and some can cite instances of President Bush 43 and Bob Dole, but its usage dates back to at least the Harding Administration. Presumably, the word 'Democrat' minus the 'ic' strips its name of one of the most revered concepts in western civilization. While the U.S. is not strictly a democracy but rather a Constitutional republic, we do adhere to principles that we define as democratic. Take away the 'ic' and it's not about power to the people but just the party of big government.

A column in The New Yorker in August '06 entitled 'The Ic Factor' by Hendrik Hertzberg calls it a slur, saying "it fairly screams 'rat.' “But the problem is the versatility of their own name. Party members are Democrats, but they belong to the Democratic Party. By contrast, 'Republican' serves well as an adjective or a noun — a Republican is a member of the Republican Party. The same with Libertarians.

According to Hertzberg, none other than William F. Buckley opposed usage of 'Democrat Party,' because politics should stay out of the language, and he noted that Joe McCarthy used it. I'm not bold enough to take on William F. Buckley, and I'm not sure of the time and context of his remarks, but I will venture that using an anti-McCarthy reference to bolster your argument tends to strike of intellectual laziness.

And if politics is supposed to stay out of our language, someone forgot to tell the liberals. Don't gut-level reactions usually define 'extremists' as conservatives? Aren't 'idealists' usually liberals who forsake personal fortune to join the Peace Corps and fight for social justice? 'Stolen election' is usually thrown around every time a Republican wins by a razor-thin margin. Liberals show no qualms in blaming our economic woes on the excesses of 'capitalism,' fully aware that government manipulation of the housing market played a big part in where we are today. And let us not forget that members of the Tea Party movement have been derisively referred to as 'tea baggers,' which, of course, carries a sexual connotation. Some inadvertently say the latter when they mean the former.

Liberals just tend to be more agile with the language, not because they are smarter than conservatives but because they trade more in nuance and ambiguity. Conservatives tend to be more absolutist. William F. Buckley's reverence for the language is inspiring. Used wisely, it conveys beauty and power.

But language, because it is so pliable, is also fun. How many of us haven't made up new words or variations on existing ones? It is thus fair game to use the language in political warfare, within reason, of course. Limbaugh also uses 'strategery' a lot, reminding listeners of Bush 43's famous faux pas. Another talk show host, Michael Savage, has referred to his home city as 'San Fran-psycho.' To borrow a sports analogy, for conservatives, saying 'Democrat Party' is like snapping a towel at the obnoxious team-mate in the locker room who takes himself too seriously. The language will survive as long as both sides protect their most cherished precepts (the right should get to work on defining capitalism). Politeness is always in order, so we won't even mention that while 'Democrat' ends with 'rat,' 'Republican' ends with 'I can.'

Reclaiming Education

By David Bozeman

2/2/10

In 2000, George W. Bush reclaimed the presidency for the GOP (albeit by a whisker) by co-opting such Democrat “kitchen table” issues as education. Granted, back then, with relative peace and prosperity, such a softer message could far better resonate. But today, with a shaky world economy, the need for real education reform is as strong as ever, and conservatives, once again, can take the lead in addressing a problem that has remained dormant for much of the last decade.

President Bush's No Child Left Behind produced a mixed bag of results, but his remarks about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" highlighted the educational ghetto that has trapped so many poor, inner-city students in cycles of low test scores, high dropout rates and poverty. A post 9/11 world slowed the momentum toward greater reform, and the Obama Administration has, predictably, reversed some positive trends toward offering disadvantaged students the same choices enjoyed by wealthy liberals (President Obama, for the record, sends his daughters to an elite, private school).

The Democrats, by way of Senator Dick Durban of Illinois, cut funding for the District of Columbia's voucher-based Opportunity Scholarship Program, an initiative that supporters claim raised student test scores. Voucher opponents, including President Obama, fear the effects of taking money out of the public system.

Interestingly, liberals, to whom “choice” is all the rage in sexual matters and who preach the wonders of diversity in the workplace and higher academia, are dead set against allowing education dollars and students to venture outside the NEA's cookie-cutter ghetto. Obama, despite his support for charter schools and greater emphasis on math and science, mouths feel-good platitudes such as "rewarding good teachers, stop making excuses for bad ones and demanding results from government at every level."

But neither left nor right in 2010 appears serious about reform. As long as primary education is a public monopoly, no one can expect the public sector to reform itself out of a job, outside of the occasional tweaks in time for elections. Not even the D.C. school system, notorious for low test scores, crime and high dropout rates, elicits the national outrage it would if it were a private company failing its customers with such alarming consistency. According to The Washington Post in July of '09, only about one half of elementary students in the District's public schools were deemed proficient in math and reading. This was an increase from about one-third in 2007. Gains at the middle and high school levels were more modest, with proficiency rates around 40 percent. Also disturbing, the Post reported in June of last year a study that put on-time graduation rates below 50 percent.

Howard Rich, of Americans for Limited Government, notes that there aren't enough choices out there to create a real constituency for change. When fed mediocrity long enough, one considers it the norm. He writes that nationally, only about 60,000 students receive scholarships. Parental choice simply isn't available in most states and usually consists of government controlled means-tested programs.

True education reform is not a mere “issue” that could gain traction. It speaks to the individual needs and potentials of all American students. Some will excel in technical trades, some will shine artistically, and some will require the strict discipline of religious instruction. The next leg of the Tea Party movement could ask why Democrats, who campaigned on “change” and a “yes, we can” chant, are unwilling to defy a status quo that inner city students and their parents have already confronted. The American Right could do well with leadership to step forward and side with the students of the District of Columbia and all students and their parents across the land. Sometimes being on the winning side of an issue is not as important as determining for yourself what the defining issues are.

Like it or not, our economy is no longer industrial-based. Many, if not most jobs of the technical and information age require 21st Century training, and the future, whether one is discussing education, the economy or politics, belongs not to those who merely react but to those who ACT. Whichever side steps up to speak for students will own the education agenda for the upcoming decade.

 Fayetteville Observer’s Roy Parker Names the 2012 Ticket

By David Bozeman

1/6/10

Famed local journalist Roy Parker, Jr. ended 2009 with a short editorial blasting Oklahoma senators Tom Coburn and James Inhofe. Their offenses you ask? In a nutshell, they "adhere to the dictum of … Jesse Helms … that the main job of a U.S. senator is to dismantle the federal government."

Finally, somebody gets it! And your problem with that is what, Mr. Parker?

Parker's editorial is one of those rare attack pieces that is a joy for small-government patriots because it almost reads like a campaign ad for the targeted senators. Not only do his charges not warrant any outrage, they engender a slight affection for Sooner State voters, against whom Parker also takes a swipe.

For specifics, Parker writes (and I hope you're sitting down) that Coburn is "the main mechanic of useless obstructionism against health care reform." Among other parliamentary roadblocks, Coburn "makes them read aloud all the legalese small-type language of proposed legislation. . . "

The horror! One item not true is his charge that Coburn opposes any change in the status quo of health care. One can bet on his support for market-based reforms free of Obama-state intervention. It is just inconceivable to liberals that all good things do not emanate from the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress.

He continues that Coburn expects other senators to do their duty by their salaries, yet he flies home every weekend and spends a full day practicing medicine in his hometown clinic.

Citizens, start a recall! We can't have our leaders back home treating the sick when they should be in Washington selling their votes like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. It's just not the democratic — er, Democratic way.

Sorry, Mr. Parker, but hypocrisy or not, most Americans would praise a public official who returns regularly to his day job, even if on the public dime. Our founders, by the way, envisioned a part-time legislature and would likely be appalled that Washington bureaucracy has become a ruling class unto itself, predicated solely upon its own perpetuation. And we know that the insurance industry is the demon du jour for the purpose of passing Obamacare, but when did doctors become the villains, too?

As for James Inhofe, Parkers labels him "more of a clown than an obstructionist." Parker provides no examples. His pronouncements, apparently, are self-evident. Simply, Inhofe does not buy into global warming. That, apparently, is the secular version of blasphemy. Parker then concludes that Oklahoma must be on some other planet -- and, some wish, "with no spaceship."

Such unifying rhetoric! Reading Parker’s editorial, I would like to see Oklahoma's dynamic duo cloned or, at least, emulated. Spirited opposition to encroaching federal power was once the mark of statesmanship, and even if Coburn and Inhofe are wrong, they deserve to be opposed on the merits of their arguments. They clearly march to their own drummer, less concerned with joining the Washington politico-media culture than with holding it to account and to answer. Coburn/Inhofe or Inhofe/Coburn in 2012? Either, to me, is OK!

Defending Freedom in a Decadent, Ego-centric Culture

By David Bozeman

12/22/09

On December 7, the day we honored the men who died at Pearl Harbor, two Navy SEALs were arraigned on charges of abusing an Iraqi terrorist captured three months ago. A third will be arraigned later, and their courts martial will likely occur early next year.

The three SEALs — Julio Huertas, Jonathan Keefe and Matthew McCabe — were part of a platoon that captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, who is believed to be the man behind the March 2004 ambush of Blackwater security guards in which four were killed, their bodies mutilated and then hung from a bridge. Details after Abed's initial capture are sketchy (and the prisoner made no complaint of abuse when turned over to Iraqi authorities), but the suspect was allegedly punched in his midsection and blood was found on his clothing. One SEAL is charged with lying to investigators. If convicted, they face imprisonment, dishonorable discharges and fines. The December 14 Human Events, a weekly conservative newspaper, describes procedural misunderstanding by top brass that chose to throw the book at the accused instead of, at the most, issuing letters of reprimand.

But let's move on to the important stuff. Bill O'Reilly giddily announced last week that he had been invited to a White House Christmas Party. Michelle Obama, he gushed, was lovely and charming. Later, Fox's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren featured an interview with Kim Kardashian, famous for being the daughter of an elite LA lawyer and the subject of a sex tape.

Every news channel is entitled to air fluff pieces. Nothing new there. And Bill O'Reilly did discuss — briefly — the plight of the Navy SEALs. But we as a nation are drowning in fluff. Our culture prizes style over substance, personality over character -- the tribulations of vapid media superstars Jon & Kate and Tiger's latest paramours animate Americans who have no idea that three Navy SEALs must defend their honor against trumped-up charges. Meanwhile, our nation's leadership is founded upon a cult of platitudes, big government and a titanic ego in the person of Barack Obama.

Still, Americans have not lost their capacity for outrage. If anything, we suffer from outrage overload. Where does one begin in halting the encroachment of big government and closing the sewers of political correctness that treat our enemies as citizens and our soldiers as terrorists? How does one prioritize justice over the breathless pursuit of celebrity gossip? The first rule of ideological warfare is to pick your battles. The average person irritated by cigarette smoke will not actively oppose a smoking ban. A business-crippling sign ordinance will galvanize scant opposition, particularly with more pressing national concerns such as government-run health care. Those who would turn America into a European-style socialist state will never have to stage a coup, as our cherished ideals of freedom and justice will disappear gradually, often with minimal news coverage. What is the average citizen to do?

After his last verbal bouquet to Michelle Obama, O'Reilly predicted vindication for the Navy SEALs. Viewers are left with hope that Tea-Partiers, Town Hall protestors and patriots in general will channel what outrage they can toward the 2010 elections and that our leaders will value America's freedom and security over the frills and perks of Washington culture. Those in the new media, including Bill O'Reilly, who speak truth to power, deserve our praise, but let us begin 2010 with an eye toward November. We don't need to know if Bill spent New Year's Eve, as well, with the Obamas.

11/23/09

Today I bought the now infamous Newsweek edition featuring Sarah Palin, clad in running shorts, on the cover. The political junkie in me thought it a great piece of memorabilia. The regular guy in me thinks she looks awesome and I can't stop looking at it.

Typical of some men ashamed of purchasing skin magazines, I sandwiched it between an aviation monthly and a newspaper, hoping the cashier, twenty years my junior, wouldn't notice. Thanks for the awkward moment, Newsweek. Ironic, since you used to be one of the legitimate publications. And yes, their analysis of Sarah Palin is as substantive as a skin rag and about as relevant.

It doesn't end with the out-of-context cover (taken from Runner's World). The contents page inexplicably features a full photo of Levi Johnston, Playgirl model and the father of Palin's grandson. He, as a subject, barely fills a single paragraph in one of the Palin hit pieces, though he briefly opines on the Perspective page that Playgirl is not porn and may even be art (ahh, wisdom beyond his years). The contents page for the Features section shows the back of candidate Palin's legs at a 2008 rally, with three young men's eyes locked in a hypnotic gaze. Inside, among various photos, is one of a Palin doll, clad in a naughty school-girl uniform: high socks, short skirt and a tear-away top with a sexy red bra underneath.

Nice work. Start dusting off your mantles, editors, I smell a Pulitzer.

The cover story 'How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah' doesn't even aspire to objectivity. Apparently, even stud muffin Johnston merits more space than a pro-Palin conservative. Evan Thomas warns that Palin and the right are attempting to purge the GOP of its moderate wing, much to its peril. Nothing new here, and the fact that self-professed conservatives tend to outperform such mushy moderates as Bob Dole and John McCain says more about the American electorate than it does about Sarah Palin.

The acerbic Christopher Hitchens tried to debunk Palin as a populist, a notion recently advanced in The Weekly Standard. He "takes care of the lazy charge" that liberal hatred of Palin is predicated on disdain for people who don't live in big east coast cities. He writes that FDR's appointee for governorship of the Alaska Territory in 1939 was, in fact, highly regarded. Ernest Gruening, a war veteran, spent fourteen years at the post and went on to serve honorably in the Senate for about a decade. One small fact decimates Hitchens' argument — that he had to reach back seventy years to find — is that Gruening was once an editor for The Nation magazine. An impressive legacy, but far-leaning leftists, wherever they come from, will always be hailed by one another. Whether they win the affection of average citizens is another story.

Hitchens concludes — and I'm paraphrasing — that for the US to stand tall, science, technology and higher education must advance. This will happen in big cities and on the east coast. There will always be groups who feel disrespected and left behind. We must reason with such people and not act as their ventriloquist or megaphone.

Excuse me! Do you think I'm some illiterate hayseed? Middle-class Americans in the South and West don't feel left behind — we're leading the way! Because of repressive taxation and regulation, America's most productive are leaving the eastern urban centers in droves for the Sun Belt. We don't shun technology and advancement -- we wish government would get out of the way and allow more of it. Sarah Palin inspires Americans to rely not on demagogues of any stripe but on themselves, thus the leftists are terrified of her.

While Hitchens' arguments are not pornographic, they fail to revive what used to be a respectable publication. He is famous for attacking none other than God and Mother Teresa, and while Palin is not in their league, she, at least, stands in good company. Too bad Christopher Hitchens, by collaborating with purveyors of soft political porn, can't say the same thing.

 Lessons from Election 2009

By David Bozeman

11/09/09

Sadly, last Tuesday's election results gave Cumberland County Republicans far less reason to celebrate than our friends in Virginia and New Jersey. As usual for odd year elections, voter turnout was dismally low, and no one can say if a higher percentage would have affected the outcome. Nonetheless, all our Republican candidates deserve major kudos and heartfelt thanks.

Having run twice for the state house, I know the many different, and often conflicting, feelings a candidacy presents. One garners a lot of attention and feels like a celebrity, but the downside includes fighting tremendous odds when your opponent has served nearly 20 years, and everyone you meet is his best friend! There is the aggravation of government paperwork and having to ask for money when you'd much rather talk about ideas and solutions. City-office candidates, I'm sure, face the challenge of apathy when national issues still dominate water-cooler conversation. So, to Bob White, mayoral candidate, George Boggs and Wade Fowler, city council candidates and almost-Hope Mills mayor Jackie Warner, thanks for contributing your names, your time, your money and your efforts.

As Saturday night's health care vote has shown us, elections matter. Just a handful of registered voters who decided tight congressional races last year by staying home may also have decided the future of health care in this country. Elections matter because; as voters in the bright blue state of New Jersey have proven, Democratic rule is not inevitable. If the socialist republic of France can elect a centrist, America-friendly prime minister, if other European nations are clamoring for immigration control and suggesting free market health care reforms, we in the U.S. must not give up hope.

Right-wing political strategy has traditionally — and rightly — focused on electing candidates. Today, the chessboard-style deductions and poll number analysis have given way to a state of urgency, if not alarm. This is no longer just about our party; this is about saving our country. With Democrats at every level, from Washington to Raleigh to Fayetteville, micro-managing our economy and diluting the freedoms that made this country great, even advisors and consultants such as Dick Morris are less impassioned over strategy than with the end, which is preserving liberty. The lesson of Election 2009? Apathy is not an option.

Notes on Upcoming Elections

  By David Bozeman

2009

Local and odd year 'non-partisan' elections don't usually generate the same excitement or voter turnout as do the national races.  Still, an impressive slate of candidates deserves our support. We have Bob White running for mayor of Fayetteville, and, for city council, George Boggs is running against incumbent Robert Massey, and Wade Fowler is opposing incumbent Bill Crisp. In Hope Mills, Jackie Warner is running to unseat Mayor Eddie Dees. Topping their agendas are crime control, taxes, accountability and, particularly in Hope Mills, traffic. What better place to sustain the grassroots' newfound fervor than in our own communities — and certainly by taking down a few incumbents on the city council, such as seventeen-year veteran Robert Massey. Cumberland County deserves the positive fallout from the Tea Party events and town hall protests.  So get out and vote. Bring a friend, bring a neighbor. Do it for our candidates, honor their commitment. As a well-known pundit has already noted – we're all community organizers now.

And 2010 . . .

Nationally, the Republican Party is very much where it was in 1993, with no frontrunner emerging for the presidential nomination and trying to reign in a charismatic president stuck in left gear. Democrats are once again pushing national health care, but, as in '93, we the people are pushing back.

Because of massive opposition, not only to Hillary-Care but to his budget bill full of tax increases, President Clinton spent six of his eight years in office with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. He was forced to govern from the center, signing welfare reform and much of the Contract with America into law, finally conceding toward the end of his presidency in a State of the Union address that, "The era of big government is over." One can certainly question his sincerity, based on his record and his character, but the American people, in all their fervor, indisputably re-set their government's agenda. 

Americans are poised to change history again. In keeping the Obama Administration on defense, notably in the health care debate, the momentum is in place to make impressive gains in 2010, even beyond the expectation that the party out of power tends to pick up seats in mid-term elections.

Still, the age of Obama seems inevitable, with a smitten media and a whole cottage industry working over-time to convince Americans that resistance is futile. James Carville's latest book is entitled 40 More Years, implying, of course, Democratic majorities for the next two generations, and it will likely gather dust with The Emerging Democratic Majority and other such tomes and articles released intermittently since Goldwater's defeat in '64. The greatness of our system is that the American people and not the professional know-it-all class will forge our nation's future. The freedom that we sustain from encroaching statism will taste all the sweeter knowing that we outlived our obituaries yet again.

The Keepers of the Peace

By David Bozeman

With all due respect to our commander-in-chief and mindful of the enormous burdens he carries, the American soldier has done far more to establish world peace than Nobel Prize winner Barack Obama. Our military men and women don't need the validation of some intellectually esoteric committee in Scandinavia — the love and support of their fellow country men will do nicely. But neither should formal recognition of their service be confined to cursory holidays and observances.

When American forces were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq — when the toughest decisions were made to fight Islamic terrorism — Barack Obama was safely serving in the Illinois Senate, his wife and daughters by his side. In fact, his family and an adoring press corps seldom left him alone in the deadliest years between 9/11 and his 2008 election. Nothing here is meant to advance the 'chicken hawk' argument used by liberals against members of the Bush Administration who never faced enemy combat. President Obama was duly elected and patriotic Americans will not undermine his Constitutional authority to pursue his foreign policy agenda.

But in terms of tangible accomplishments thus far, it is the American military that has secured a semblance of order in Iraq. Remember Iraq? We were told for roughly half a decade that it was a lost cause, a quagmire, Vietnam redux, etc. etc. Though lasting victory is still not secure, Iraq has somehow faded from the headlines.

Policy and leadership certainly determine world peace. Still, our soldiers, from surge leader General David Petraeus on down, volunteered to spend months in the most hostile, godforsaken corners of the world, in 100-plus degree heat, away from loved ones, fighting not always an army but a deadly strain of fanaticism. Despite plummeting favor at home and abroad for their mission, their morale showed no sign of weakening. With nary a complaint, all they ask is that we honor their fallen comrades

Because of our military might, in only the second presidential election after 9/11, national security ranked as a secondary issue, allowing 'hope' and 'change' to dominate as themes in 2008. Again, leaders set the policy and our soldiers carry it out, but Obama's earnest but fumbling attempts at world statesmanship pale beside their magnificent service. The Nobel Committee was dazzled by Obama's desire for world cooperation, but it is the fear of terrorists for our military, not unrequited pleas for international harmony that have staved off the once considered inevitable follow-up to 9/11. The American soldier is worth not just a peace prize; in fact, their valor should be standard against which all future candidates are measured. Thank our military, Mr. President. That will be your first step to earning an honor that was bestowed — and I'm being as kind as possible here — prematurely.

Can't You Read the Signs?

by David Bozeman

An unusual attraction awaits visitors to downtown Las Vegas. The Neon Museum is a self-guided walking tour showcasing those bright, gaudy signs, from the Rat Pack Days and before, that illuminated the gambling Mecca. The famous lamp from the Aladdin hotel is restored to its former glory, as are the lesser known but no less kitschy signs from Dot's Flowers and Fifth Street Liquor.

City planners concerned with the size and placement of signs in Fayetteville might bear in mind that not only do signs not detract from a city's image, they enhance it. Granted, Fayetteville is not Las Vegas, and Sin City's persona may not match Fayetteville's vision. Furthermore, even some of the most rigid free-marketers will concede the need for long-range planning and a modicum of regulation.

But while Fayetteville is not Las Vegas, we are not Pinehurst or Hilton Head, either. Fayetteville's economy thrives as a shopping and entertainment hub for our military and the whole region. Chains and local merchants define Fayetteville in much the way that golf courses define Pinehurst. Old, neglected signs can certainly constitute an eyesore, while new signs -- bright, colorful and tall -- represent a thriving economy.

The words of city planners show an undercurrent of animosity toward the frills of a capitalist-based culture, with talk of reducing "visual clutter" along Fayetteville's main arteries. Prohibiting pole signs, according to the chairman of the city planning commission, "could improve the landscape." One proposal would even limit the brightness and duration of messages on digital signs. Some businesses would reportedly have to pay thousands of dollars to comply -- just what our local economy is crying out for!

This mind set bears as much concern as the proposed ordinances themselves. While most signs will never qualify as historical relics, some color our fondest memories and recollections. The South of the Border signs along I-95 come to mind. Even if they are protected now, how long before some city or county planner decides that the giant milk-carton sign on Ramsey Street or the sports car atop the poll on Bragg Blvd. near Hay Street are eye sores? How long before the Krispy Kreme sign is deemed out of step with the latest long-range vision?

The adornments of capitalism can be loud, gaudy and unpredictable, and commercialism is an easy target for elitist scorn. But capitalism lends color and vibrancy to community landscapes. Signs illuminate goods and services that make our lives better and they represent life and opportunity.

The real blight on Cumberland County is not the digital messages outside the local chain pharmacies. Large, vacant buildings, mostly former grocery stores and video stores, sit abandoned year after year. Every Fayetteville resident probably drives by at least one every day on our major thoroughfares. Surely, investors and county planners could make filling this prime real estate a higher priority to provide consumer choice, jobs and tax revenues. Whether chains or local enterprises, they can breathe life back into dark, stagnant enterprise zones. And it will take signs -- big and bright -- to bring people back in. Fayetteville can enjoy a prosperous future if we emphasize economic growth more -- the size and placement of signs should amount to little more than a tidying up effort. Ultimately, the tastes and values of individual citizens should define a community and as long as they flourish, Fayetteville residents will never have to visit a museum to view signs in all their garish, over-sized glory.