have we overlooked our best republican candidate

[altruismsuffers]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Another thing ...

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is the "best" Republican candidate had better put down the bong.

It's been abundantly clear from the primaries that Ron Paul is not electable in any way, shape or form on a national scale. He hasn't won a single state. He hasn't even come close to doing so.

And you know that he would get absolutely drilled in a general election, no matter who would run for the Democrats. I'm talking 70-30 or even 80-20 -- as bad as that butt-whoopin' Obama laid on Alan Keyes during his U.S. Senate race.

He got second in Nevada, He arguably got second or maybe first in Louisiana... This with NO NAME RECOGNITION and all but a complete media black out.  If they gave Dr. Paul HALF the time they give any of these other Council on Foreign Relation HALF WITS he would already have the nomination.  People are ready for change and all those other a** clowns talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

[deinstein]

I'm a left-leaning independent who supports Barack Obama, but if you're a true Conservative you'll have a hard time justifying to me why you did not vote for Ron Paul.

[YoungTulsan]

Im sick of people saying Ron Paul's ideas are the simple ones.  The simple ideas are the ones that justify us continueing to participate in a system that is increasingly broken, causing us to go bankrupt, and admittedly from every side of the aisle is extremely corrupt.  The simple idea is just accepting a 3.1 TRILLION dollar federal budget because "thats the way things are today".  The COMPLEX AND TOUGH idea would be to try to find a way to reverse that trend, to STOP GIVING MORE POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  Every dollar we allow the government to TAKE from us, is more POWER we are giving them OVER OUR LIVES.  I do not understand why any supposed libertarian would not make this his NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.  They scare you in the media and say you'd rather be ALIVE than FREE.   Why not have both?  We are in bigger danger of our government reaching a point of no-return in the amount of powers it has over us to control us and squash any resistance than we are of foreign nations killing us all.  How can we even hope to HAVE a government with our best interests in mind, a government that is actually concerned about protecting us, if we allow it to get so powerful that it need not listen to us when we speak out against the course of action it decides to take.

Big government is out of control.  Collectivists have successfully taken over both parties.  You need to realize how similar many Republicans and Democrats really are.  They are now BOTH advocating government role in everyones' lives.  They are now BOTH advocating taking powers away from the individual for the "greater good" of the many.  You have to look at the very philosophy of how government is supposed to work instead of just going with your gut on which politician sounds the best.  Sure, many of the things politicians propose SOUND good - Poverty is bad, Terrists are evil, Global warming is killing children and puppies - Let the government take care of it, since we're obviously too small and insignificant to make a difference!   We wouldn't LOGICALLY just hand control over our lives to a giant government.  But with EMOTION, they can get you to ignore logical reasoning when it comes to your money, your freedoms, your rights.

It is overly simplistic to keep going along with this system that is growing exponentially at the same time peoples' choices and control over their lives shrink.

You may not agree with all of Ron Paul's stances, but if he is the only one that would actually fight to CONTROL the powers of government, why on earth would that not supercede any of the smaller issues that the SYSTEM uses to divide and conquer us?

Collectivists have Republicans voting for them like SHEEP because they confuse you with SOCIAL ISSUES and EMOTIONAL TOPICS to keep you from paying attention to their fundamental belief in a collectivist government system that's ultimate goal is to keep growing, keep taking from the invididual, and keep increasing its power over the people.  Do you really thing Bush cares about gay marriage?  It was a Karl Rove plan in 2004 to put gay marriage votes on ballots in swing states to get a maximum amount of the anti-gay crowd out to the polls (all of which were garunteed to add to Bush's victory) - How about global warming?  If you believe the evidence is sufficient that we are destroying the planet, then sure we need to start finding alternative sources of energy and stop consuming so much.  But giving more POWER to the GOVERNMENT is not going to solve it.  The people most vocal on global warming are in favor of a TAX to help stop emissions.  Who benefits from the tax?  Someone does, and it explains why there are such vocal forces out there telling us how bad we are and how something must be done OR ELSE.  Abortion?  I know Ron Paul is distinctively on one side of this arguement, but in general when politicians talk about their positions on abortion, they do so knowing fully well that nothing is likely to change from the situation we have currently in regards to abortion.  They are redirecting your attention from the fact that both parties are collectivists, both want to expand government control over your life.

Every source of mainstream media out there is owned, financed, or reported by people on the side of collectivism.  Everything you are taught paints government as the only solution to all of the pressing big problems, and not-so-pressing manufactured problems, that life throws at us.  You are conditioned to immediately reject things like I am saying right now as crazy.  The system as it exists today is not to be questioned.  Life is good, right?  So why bother fighting for a principle as long as the system has us all taken care of?

Studying the works of our founding fathers is not insane.  It is important if we are going to keep this country on track as a free society.  We do not want the history books to say that America THOUGHT it had won the cold war, only to realize decades later that the same ideas of collectivism and statism had already infected the US government to a point that it couldnt be stopped and eventually erased the United States' status as a free nation.

[Conan71]

YT- interesting dissertation, excellent points, thank you.

It's pretty hard for anyone, even the biggest GOP loyalists, to see a $3 tril budget as anything but government growth out of control.

[bokworker]

I tend to believe a successful politician has 2 main goals.... 1) be able to convince you how sorry your lot in life is and 2) that they have the solution to all of your problems.

Don't be confused by facts or evidence to the contrary. Disbelief is only a reflection of the additional work they have to do on goal #1...

And if you really are doing well then  that is something you should be ashamed of based upon all of the suffering around you.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by altruismsuffers

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Another thing ...

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is the "best" Republican candidate had better put down the bong.

It's been abundantly clear from the primaries that Ron Paul is not electable in any way, shape or form on a national scale. He hasn't won a single state. He hasn't even come close to doing so.

And you know that he would get absolutely drilled in a general election, no matter who would run for the Democrats. I'm talking 70-30 or even 80-20 -- as bad as that butt-whoopin' Obama laid on Alan Keyes during his U.S. Senate race.

He got second in Nevada, He arguably got second or maybe first in Louisiana... This with NO NAME RECOGNITION and all but a complete media black out.  If they gave Dr. Paul HALF the time they give any of these other Council on Foreign Relation HALF WITS he would already have the nomination.  People are ready for change and all those other a** clowns talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

If I were a registered Repulican(feh), I would have voted for Ron Paul.

[waterboy]

Well, its good to be young and passionate about politics and life. Yeah, life seems so simple to you at this stage of your life and the country is so f***ed up from trying to solve problems that would go away if we just had small government that didn't interfere with our lives. Thats what repels me from Paul and libertarians in general. This idea that somehow the founders were inspired by some divine simplicity that if we follow will bring us peace and prosperity. I believe the opposite. The founders were clear thinkers who expected the country to adjust to the changing landscape of life and gave us a great framework to do so.

From what I can deduce, Libertarians advocate that if we just follow the founding fathers advice to a small 13 state confederacy that faced very few of the problems we now do ....everything will be just fine. Less government yields more happiness. But the government they objected to was not the same as ours today. The somewhat benevolent monarchy they struggled to free themselves from was more arrogant, and denied more rights than ours. I also object to the portraying of these leaders as close to apostle status. They were 18th century white men (no women or blacks just to keep things real simple). Men who had slaves, and didn't believe everyone should have the vote, just white land owners. They were inspiring, daring and intelligent but hardly infallible or even original in their thinking. In fact most of their inspiration came from John Locke, a liberal aristocrat from a few decades preceding them.

What would our life be like had we kept close to their dictates? Think about that and be honest. Do you think slavery would have ended as quickly? Do you think we could have repelled efforts to attack us with such a weak central government that relied on a confederacy of widely differing states? The South almost successfully left over such differences. Had we stuck with the 18th century admonitions that you espouse, they would have. No federal financing of such risky wars at taxpayer expense. How about the street urchins that lived in NYC ghettos at the turn of the century and worked in sweat shops. A weak ineffective central government that was told to keep out of our business and personal lives would have no power to stop such trajedies. Then of course banking laws, pure food laws, anti-trust, labor protections, interstate commerce regulation, health regulations etc, etc. would be at the mercy of 50 different states and 50 different policies because without an IRS to force collections and a justice dept. to ensure consistent enforcement the whole system is ANYTHING but simplified and peaceful. Life is complex and far different than what the founders expected, but Paul's recommending that the IRS and public education be axed would make it even more complex and set us up for disaster.

Churchill is often quoted as saying, "Any man who is not a liberal as a youth has no heart. Any man who is not a conservative as an old man has no head." Substitute the word "passion" for heart, and the word "wisdom" for head and I think you are close to his real meaning. I hope Paul has some impact on the system, but I pray he doesn't inspire his followers into believing that we are so far off course we have to sink the ship.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by altruismsuffers

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Another thing ...

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is the "best" Republican candidate had better put down the bong.

It's been abundantly clear from the primaries that Ron Paul is not electable in any way, shape or form on a national scale. He hasn't won a single state. He hasn't even come close to doing so.

And you know that he would get absolutely drilled in a general election, no matter who would run for the Democrats. I'm talking 70-30 or even 80-20 -- as bad as that butt-whoopin' Obama laid on Alan Keyes during his U.S. Senate race.

He got second in Nevada, He arguably got second or maybe first in Louisiana... This with NO NAME RECOGNITION and all but a complete media black out.  If they gave Dr. Paul HALF the time they give any of these other Council on Foreign Relation HALF WITS he would already have the nomination.  People are ready for change and all those other a** clowns talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

And what state keeps electing that assclown Harry Reid?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Well, its good to be young and passionate about politics and life. Yeah, life seems so simple to you at this stage of your life and the country is so f***ed up from trying to solve problems that would go away if we just had small government that didn't interfere with our lives. Thats what repels me from Paul and libertarians in general. This idea that somehow the founders were inspired by some divine simplicity that if we follow will bring us peace and prosperity. I believe the opposite. The founders were clear thinkers who expected the country to adjust to the changing landscape of life and gave us a great framework to do so.

From what I can deduce, Libertarians advocate that if we just follow the founding fathers advice to a small 13 state confederacy that faced very few of the problems we now do ....everything will be just fine. Less government yields more happiness. But the government they objected to was not the same as ours today. The somewhat benevolent monarchy they struggled to free themselves from was more arrogant, and denied more rights than ours. I also object to the portraying of these leaders as close to apostle status. They were 18th century white men (no women or blacks just to keep things real simple). Men who had slaves, and didn't believe everyone should have the vote, just white land owners. They were inspiring, daring and intelligent but hardly infallible or even original in their thinking. In fact most of their inspiration came from John Locke, a liberal aristocrat from a few decades preceding them.

What would our life be like had we kept close to their dictates? Think about that and be honest. Do you think slavery would have ended as quickly? Do you think we could have repelled efforts to attack us with such a weak central government that relied on a confederacy of widely differing states? The South almost successfully left over such differences. Had we stuck with the 18th century admonitions that you espouse, they would have. No federal financing of such risky wars at taxpayer expense. How about the street urchins that lived in NYC ghettos at the turn of the century and worked in sweat shops. A weak ineffective central government that was told to keep out of our business and personal lives would have no power to stop such trajedies. Then of course banking laws, pure food laws, anti-trust, labor protections, interstate commerce regulation, health regulations etc, etc. would be at the mercy of 50 different states and 50 different policies because without an IRS to force collections and a justice dept. to ensure consistent enforcement the whole system is ANYTHING but simplified and peaceful. Life is complex and far different than what the founders expected, but Paul's recommending that the IRS and public education be axed would make it even more complex and set us up for disaster.

Churchill is often quoted as saying, "Any man who is not a liberal as a youth has no heart. Any man who is not a conservative as an old man has no head." Substitute the word "passion" for heart, and the word "wisdom" for head and I think you are close to his real meaning. I hope Paul has some impact on the system, but I pray he doesn't inspire his followers into believing that we are so far off course we have to sink the ship.

Even though you mistake me for a strict constructionist- good points as well.

Some U.S. government responsibility and growth are necessary for interstate commerce, flood control and hydroelectric power (could you imagine how jacked up our rivers would be if individuals were left to their own devices), law enforcement, etc. etc.

There have been changing and developing needs over the years which have required larger government programs and payrolls.  There have also been economic development programs which have added to payroll, I'm not so hot on those.

So, we know there are essential goods and services of government.  

What keeps multiplying like the tribbles in Star Trek is the administrative costs of government.  It takes too many people to provide the essential goods and services gov't does.  The reason being, is departments keep expanding budgets and adding jobs without proper review of existing employee proficiency and efficiency prior to mutating those into other jobs.

IOW- instead of what often happens in the private sector where you have one person doing the jobs of three, you wind up with three people doing the job of one in government.  It's gotten so big and deft, no one seems to notice another 1000 jobs being added here and there in gov't.

[YoungTulsan]

With utmost respect, I kindly must give my rebuttal to those of you who pair libertarianism with the breakdown of society and complete anarchy.  Don't worry so much about that.  We have IDEALS, but in reality we just want to change the direction things are headed in.  Change the direction from MORE government control to LESS.  Not neccesarily wipeing out the government completely.  I agree that we would not be served well to eliminate all government.  I like the interstate highway system.  Running water is a marvelous accomplishment.  The US Postal Service does wonders for our economy and way of life.  As long as a government institution SERVES us, I am completely fine with it.  We just need to keep a control on the government when it gets into any other business than to serve us.

There may be some hardcore Libertarians that really want to bring down everything, but realize most people saying things like I am have a very realistic approach.  I would be happy with small progress in the right direction as opposed to drastic changes turning our country upside down overnight.  I feel this way, and hope that a Ron Paul would feel this way too.  I know it is unrealistic to simply think all maliciousness and corruption would be gone if we just got rid of big government.  That is idealistic.  But I do want to see progress towards tempering runaway government powers.

If you listen to Ron Paul, he actually makes perfectly clear that he wouldn't shut everything down overnight.  On one hand, he is not afraid to speak at length about how we should never have started certain programs to begin with, he also has ways to live with these government institutions or go through a smooth transitional phase.  He is one of the few people talking about an actual solution to social security, letting young people opt out.  He is one of the VERY few people willing to be fiscally conservative enough in OTHER areas that we could actually MEET the burgeoning demands the social security system is presenting us, ESPECIALLY in the event that we do let people opt out of it.

He says down with the federal reserve.  The printing of money out of thin air and the price fixing the Fed is allowed to get away with undermine the lower class and manipulate the markets to the point that they are not free, and are MORE unstable, he says.  But he has ideas that don't simply abolish it.  He has suggested competing currencies, legalizing gold and silver as currency for people who choose to use it (NOT reverting 100% back to only using physical gold and silver pieces for ALL money as some people insinuate or believe), and requireing more transparency for the decision-making process of the Fed so the American public knows why it creates the situations that it does (perhaps reigning them in a bit) - A reasonable comprimise.

Ending the income tax.  Some people mistakenly think that the income tax equals the entire federal budget.  Far from the truth, just ending the income tax would still leave something like 60% of the federal revenue stream in place, and around the levels we had in 2000.  He even has a proposal for no taxes on tips - which is obviously something that would apply WHILE the income tax is in place.  He realizes that ending the income tax might not be easy, but there are other ways we can get smaller amounts of progress accomplished such as not taxing the tips of people working lower class service type jobs.

When Ron Paul says get rid of the Department of Education, he is talking about the federal bureacracy, not all education.  It is just a top heavy redundant level of government sitting above state and local governments that ALREADY HANDLE the responsibility of education.  We already spend most of our money on education on a LOCAL level, but if we didn't have the federal layer that would just free up MORE money for us to spend the way WE know it would be best effective.  We shouldn't send a bunch of money off to Washington and just HOPE a good portion of it comes back to us.  No Child Left Behind was a dangerous step in gross federal expansion of powers.  The only way it is even LEGAL is because participation is optional (forced participation in federal education mandate would be unconstitutional) - But with the exessive taxation we are under by the federal government, they can pretty much FORCE us to participate anyway, by saying you will get none of your federal money (our money that they LET us have back) if you do not participate.  It sets a precedent, that could lead to worse violations down the line.  What if the Gore administration decided that only global warming alarmism could be taught in science classes about the climate.  What if the Huckabee administration decided that evolution could not be taught in schools?  What if President Chelsea wanted only positive history taught about her parents, or President Jeb wanted only positive history taught about his brother?  Giving the executive branch of the federal government the ability to approve certain ciriculum for an entire nation has serious potential to be abused.  On a state level, at least if Kansas decides not to teach evolution, they only have the power to dictate this to Kansans - not the entire country.  A government elected BY the people shouldnt have supreme power over the ideas and knowledge that the PEOPLE are allowed or required to learn.  That is just more self perpetuating power of big government.

Getting rid of the department of education isn't a road to anarchy.  The Federal Reserve can not and will not be abolished anytime soon, but competition and legalizing constitutional currency will HELP.  We can end the entitlement system by PHASING IT OUT, rather than kicking people to the curb or cutting benefits.

These are not the ideas of a madman who would end society as we know it.  He has ideals, ideals that are very very far off from where we are.  We will not reach his ideals overnight.  We would probably never reach them.  We really just need to change direction, and make PROGRESS towards those ideals.  We do not need to simply shut down the current system we have and start over.  We need to comprimise, transition, and move in steps - even the smallest steps if that is all we can accomplish for the time being - but steps in the direction AWAY from total government control of all aspects of life.  Away from total control granted to the HIGHEST level.  Away from a system that hands control to a very few elite.  Away from a system so top heavy that the wealthiest power brokers can get what they want by simply buying the votes at the very top, with zero worries about any backlash.  This is bad enough with the FEDERAL government controlling everything, just imagine if they are able to erode sovereignty and grant INTERNATIONAL authority over everything.

[altruismsuffers]

Keep on preaching on YoungTulsan!  You are my hero I have been back and forth with these people for years now and its good to actually have someone with some sense on this board.  We know they are going to elect who they want and that won't be Ron Paul.  I hope you all know that the voting machines are OWNED!!!  Want to learn more about the stolen elections and how they will still this one come see Uncounted on the 25th!  Its free and open to the public.

[waterboy]

I have no problem with anything you've written in your second post with some tweaking. The Feds have long used extortion techniques in granting our tax money back to us in efforts to affect the common good. It has been successful but I agree it could easily be abused with a Bush, Huckabee, type of leadership. Choose the leaders well its moot. Nonetheless, encouraging the hiring of minorities, requiring the education of, and facilities for, the disabled, licensing etc have all been activities that the states would not do or didn't feel were necessary. And thats where much of this movement may be originating. States Rights. A battle that started with the original colonies and is still being fought.

The gold standard and the Fed Reserve are simply out of my comprehension. I remember when we went to Fed Reserve Notes in place of the Silver Certificates but honestly, it too is a long standing argument often based on who owns the backing of the dollar. If you support free markets, it seems the world market makes the real determination of the dollar's value which has little to do with what we base it on. What if we backed it with silicon chips? Or hematite? Like I say, I can't get a grasp of this one.

I admire Paul and the passion he has engendered in the movement but he sounds somewhat "mullah-ish" when he throws out the IRS abolishment. I hope you guys are in for the long run and not just the figurehead.  Like you and the Con man say, the real problem is in the proliferation of staff, budgets, pork and unaccountable spending. The system itself is perpetuating fiscal obesity.

Altruism: "these people"??

[cyndezu]

I knew almost nothing about him when I started this thread.

He makes more sense than any candidate I've ever heard.
More people should be at least listening to Ron Paul.
If he is still in it, so am I for him.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

The gold standard and the Fed Reserve are simply out of my comprehension. I remember when we went to Fed Reserve Notes in place of the Silver Certificates but honestly, it too is a long standing argument often based on who owns the backing of the dollar. If you support free markets, it seems the world market makes the real determination of the dollar's value which has little to do with what we base it on. What if we backed it with silicon chips? Or hematite? Like I say, I can't get a grasp of this one.

It isn't even so much what specifically the dollar is backed by, it is the ability to create more of it on a whim.  People in the Democrat party who are genuinely concerned with the wellbeing of poor and middle class folks, who with voting and activism are trying to make the biggest difference they can to help the little guy and stall corruption - all seem to be oblivious to the biggest tool that the system has to hurt the lower class.  You might know what inflation is, and have a rough idea of what causes it.  You probably know that inflation hits low income people the hardest.

Really think about it though.  We hit a shortfall, and the federal reserve can just PRINT MONEY.  It adds more money to the supply, it puts more money out into the system.  The dollar's value drops because there are more dollars circulating around an economy that is otherwise the same.  It is manipulation of the currency itself to create new money.  When new money is created by the fed, it is going to pay off debts.  That means it is headed overseas to pay off trade defecits (where hopefully they keep accepting the dollars we just print) or it is given domestically to very wealthy people and institutions to pay off debts.  Low interest rates work almost the same way.  When the Fed creates a bubble, the richer you are the more you benefit.  The poorer you are, the less access you get to the cheap money.  The poorer you are, the less likely you are to profit off of the overproduction and malinvestments going on.  But while the wealthy are benefitting from the new money, everyone is suffering from the devaluation of the dollar.  Poor and middle class people who have no participation in the system of easy credit, overproduction of consumer goods, over construction of luxury homes, etc - they still end up with money that is worth LESS.  When things suddenly cost 10% more than they did a year ago, McDonalds doesn't give you a raise.  Social Security benefits do not rise 10%.  The financial system gets away with devaluation of the dollar, poor people suffer, and the new money gravitates towards the rich.

The same thing happens overseas - They are finally starting to catch on to the fact that we print our dollars excessively to buy (or CLAIM) much more than we can afford.  The dollar's value overseas is on a steep decline.  As foreign oil producing nations switch from selling oil in dollars to selling it in Euros, we can no longer just print money up and watch it have no effect on the prices we pay.  With people selling oil in euros, the dollar is exposed.  When we add money to our supply, the dollar's standing for the euro actually devalues on the market - our secret is out.  This is why oil has gone from $30 to $90 recently.  And these sharp increases on the price we are paying for imported oil, imported goods, etc - is starting to really add up in the increases in cost of living for the average person in the United States.

So even WITHOUT gold backing, the dollar wouldn't be so bad if the federal government combined with the federal reserve system could use self control when it comes to borrowing, extending artificially cheap credit, and printing new money.  This is why the fed needs more oversight.  This is why people should be able to convert their dollars to something else like gold if they WANT TO (it is currently against the law!!) - Just say you figured out one day what the fed was doing to your money, and didnt like it.  You wanted to instead save your wealth in a currency that wasn't being devalued just to create more money for someone else a thousand miles away.  So you decide to save your wealth in gold.  That should be a perfectly legal option for you.

We could probably never go back to a gold standard.  What Paul and others like him hated when the gold standard went away was that it ENABLED the fed to do what it has been doing with the money, the creation of money from nothing.  That was a power that the government and its' favored banking system have surely abused to a very dangerous extent.

[Double A]

Security and the Falling Dollar
By JUDY SHELTON

Every year, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is briefed by the chief of U.S. intelligence on potential threats to the nation. The list is sobering, but usually predictable and typically includes global terrorism, nuclear proliferation and regional conflicts.

But this year, there was a surprising potential foe: the falling dollar. In his report to Congress last week, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell went beyond the conventional world of spycraft. Mr. McConnell specifically acknowledged "concerns about the financial capabilities of Russia, China, and OPEC countries and the potential use of their market access to exert financial leverage to achieve political ends." He noted, in particular, the impact a weak dollar can have on national security: "As the dollar has weakened this year, some oil producers -- such as Syria, Iran, and Libya -- have asked to be paid in currencies other than the dollar while others -- such as Kuwait -- are delinking their currency pegs to the dollar."

It's not every day a former Navy vice admiral steeped in the culture of the defense intelligence community talks like a central banker, but Mr. McConnell clearly recognizes a threat: "Continued concerns about dollar depreciation could tempt other major producers to follow suit."

The rest of Washington -- and every presidential contender -- needs to start paying attention to the declining dollar before it develops into a full-blown currency crisis with damaging geopolitical consequences. What happens if major oil-producing nations decide to abandon the dollar for measuring the value of their most important export? What if they set up their own monetary union to serve as an alternative to a currency that is no longer a reliable store of value?

At a time when the Pentagon is focusing on the importance of rebuilding war-torn nations -- restoring civil and economic stability -- as a prerequisite for lasting peace, we should be emphasizing the confidence-building aspects of sound money. The dollar's primary role in the world financial system is the most vital nonmilitary instrument of our national power. We cannot afford to neglect the dollar and thereby give up the global influence that comes from providing the world's key reserve currency.

It's a matter of global energy security, first and foremost. Russia makes no secret of its ambitions to elevate the ruble to world reserve currency status. President Vladimir Putin, in a major televised speech last Friday outlining his strategic goals for the next 12 years, stated that Russia must become "one of the world's financial centers" -- a logical step, he asserted, given that Russia has accumulated $484 billion in gold and foreign currency reserves. Mr. Putin earlier called for denominating transactions for Russian oil and gas exports in rubles. When his chosen successor, Dmitry Medvedev, is inaugurated in May, we can expect a tightening of the link between Russian energy deliveries and currency requirements imposed on recipient countries.





A perfect storm for dollar desertion may already be brewing. In the months ahead, China is expected to export fewer consumer goods to the U.S. with a forcibly-appreciated yuan. Meanwhile, Chinese spending for Russian oil and gas will likely start to ramp up. Mr. Medvedev, whose duties include serving as chairman of Gazprom, observed this past summer that the U.S. dollar was not immune to crisis of a "comprehensive, global character." He was thinking ahead about potential opportunities. "A situation may arise where we, China, and some other Asian countries will speak of the emergence of a regional reserve currency." The yuan was a possibility, Mr. Medvedev conceded. "But it is in our interest that it be the ruble."





If gold and foreign currency reserves were the only prerequisite for harboring global ambitions in the monetary arena, China could make impressive claims of its own with $1.7 trillion as of December 2007, the world's highest level. Japan comes in second at $973 billion. If you add together the gold and foreign currency reserves of EU member states that have adopted the euro, including those of the European Central Bank, the total amount in the EU is $511 billion.





Russia trails not so far behind. And beyond its considerable official reserves (which increased by 57% last year alone) and its alarming energy clout in European and Asian markets, Russia has a growing military presence. Not that Russia's military capabilities were ever truly contained. But those capabilities have been constrained as Russia struggled to emerge from its Communist past and join the family of democratic nations. Political transformation and economic renewal took precedence, so it seemed, over the large demands on funds that clinging to military superpower status would have required.

Building up a menacing force of strategic bombers, nuclear submarines and new intercontinental ballistic missiles is a financial luxury -- one that Mr. Putin now seems eager to indulge as Russia fills its coffers. It may be that he sees it as the essential appendage to global power needed to carry out his strategic vision.

How else to explain the incursion of a Russian warplane on Saturday into Japanese air space, a violation that caused 22 Japanese fighter jets to scramble and elicited a strong protest to Moscow from the Japanese foreign ministry? The TU-95 "Bear" bomber is equipped to carry cruise missiles that can deliver a nuclear warhead.

Japanese newspapers speculate that the intrusion might have been prompted by an annual rally held two days before in Tokyo demanding the return of four islands seized by Russia in the closing days of World War II. Both Japan and Russia are strongly motivated to settle the long-standing dispute; Japan wants greater access to Russian energy supplies while Russia seeks Japanese financial capital to develop its far eastern regions.

Just last week -- only three days before the Russian warplane sortie -- Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda announced he had received a letter from the Russian president offering to hold talks to resolve the dispute over the islands. Mr. Fukuda has made plans to visit Moscow in late April or early May, convinced that working out a settlement with Mr. Putin "is essential to lift Russo-Japanese ties to higher levels." If he waits until May 9, Mr. Fukuda can take in Mr. Medvedev's inaugural ceremonies as well as the planned full-scale, Soviet-style military parade -- the first display of weapons on Red Square since 1990.

Not that the crude maneuvering of carrot-and-stick incentives isn't effective, but it is dangerous. Especially when the dealmaker has shown a high propensity to rely on the stick.

A weakening U.S. currency plays directly into fears about a weakening U.S. economy and gives credence to self-serving pronouncements about America's weakening role in the world arena. The dollar won't be strengthened by further interest-rate cuts or more fiscal stimulation leading to inflationary consumer spending. If the U.S. is to reclaim its position as provider of the world's most trusted currency, we must think more boldly.

It's time to confront currency disorder. Our goal should be to put forward a new proposal for international monetary relations on the scale of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, invoking the same sentiments that inspired architects John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White to provide a foundation of hope for a world all too prone to violence. A global system based on a universally-accepted monetary asset -- the U.S. has the world's highest level of official gold reserves, followed by Germany and France -- would not only counter Russia's offensive. It would convert a national security threat into a golden opportunity.