Abolish the Federal Reserve? Return to a gold monetary standard? Reverse the 16th Amendment?

All of these issues have drawn attention in recent weeks thanks to the often-eccentric presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul. While some have poked fun, others have ardently supported what they espouse to be refreshing views from a friend of the Constitution. Whereas we can debate some of Paul's arguably more excessive proposals, it's in the arena of foreign policy and diplomacy that we should perhaps place the brightest spotlight on the congressman's platform. The president indeed has many responsibilities, but the role of Commander-in-Chief is the one that often garners the most scrutiny and appraisal.

In that regard, policy statements on diplomacy and war may be the most significant and essential for any ambitious presidential applicant to offer the American people. Being the consummate constitutionalist, one might expect Ron Paul to in fact be the most detailed and forthright with his foreign policy vision. So you can probably imagine my surprise upon reviewing Paul's campaign website. Far from enumerating his world view, Paul's foreign policy positions are left surprisingly ambiguous. Other than the insinuation that the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo was a bad idea, Paul's plan is seemingly rather thin:

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Of all the diplomatic concerns Paul has, it's often American membership in the United Nations that stands out the most. As Dave Neiwert recently pointed out, Paul has sponsored at least fifteen Congressional measures intended to withdraw the United States from the UN. Not known for the mincing of words, the congressman has expressed no interest in even attempting to reform the global body. "The problem is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept," argues Paul.

Keep in mind, President Bush received tremendous criticism for his 2005 recess appointment of John Bolton, who was considered at the time to be a rather inflammatory selection for UN ambassador. However, despite Bolton's rhetoric and demeanor, he was still viewed as a reformer. Legitimate criticism of the UN's record aside, the Bolton move symbolized a desire by the Bush administration to engage in the global community's preferred forum. A Paul presidency would offer no such gesture. Despite the current global climate, Paul seems to believe now the best time to disengage from the world's largest deliberative body. Facing a stateless enemy, he fights for a world where autonomous and sovereign states engage each other directly to maintain global stability.

Paul's global perspective is perhaps informed by his understanding of the one day that changed this traditional dynamic. Of all the candidates campaigning for the presidency, Ron Paul often comes across as the least interested in the attacks of September 11, 2001. The global war against terrorism has created a lens with which most candidates for president must look through while forming their foreign policy agendas.

But not Ron Paul.

In his view, we must consider our own culpability in the advent of radical Islamic terrorism. America's attempts to police the world, Paul might argue, have fostered nothing but disdain and animosity towards us around the globe. Lacking the proper understanding of this 21st Century conflict, Paul's view of the world is arguably an antiquated one. Showing little interest in the adaptive nature of conflict, Paul minimizes the terrorist threat with a 19th Century perspective on the world:

I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force.

This static understanding of warfare, and the way ideology transcends borders, provides a clear window into the congressman's foreign policy vision. At a time when Democrats and Republicans alike are dealing with the appropriate measures necessary for dealing with the threat of global terrorism, Ron Paul refuses to waver. In Paul's world, warfare is conducted formally, with formal militaries in uniforms and flags unfurled. This can explain his misstatements on 9/11, and helps us understand why he sees no threat in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This isn't merely a "pre-9/11" mindset, but rather, one that pre-dates even the Cold War. Conflict in the Middle East is a trifling matter to Paul, one that he sees the U.S. playing no substantive role in:

Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.

Americans have historically looked towards their president for some kind of global vision at times of war and global uncertainty. President Roosevelt eased domestic fears during times of economic upheaval, and rallied America to defend the world from Fascism during World War II. President Reagan, assuming the presidency at a time of domestic uncertainty, challenged Americans to be proud of their accomplishments, and stood resolutely against the Soviet Empire and their catastrophic ideology.

Would President Paul inspire in a similar fashion, or does a Paul candidacy instead find its appeal with a frustrated and war weary electorate? Less ambitious, and apparently lacking in vision, Paul offers an unrealistic comfort to those who believe America, and indeed the world, is safer when America folds in on herself. It appeals to the most isolated and irresponsible tendencies of the American makeup. An unlikely candidate in past years, Ron Paul's global non-vision has provided the perfect storm to a portion of the electorate burned out by six years of war.

Somewhat surprisingly, even a few progressive voices have succumbed to the Paul's charms. While certain commentators have referred to him as the lesser of the Republican evils, others, such as Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald, have gone so far as to compare his bid to Howard Dean's upstart candidacy of 2004. Greenwald even referred to Paul as the most "principled" conservative in the race.

I suppose that's for Republicans to decide. But all potential voters should take heed and pay close attention to Ron Paul. His campaign apparatus up to this point has been impressive, and his use of the internet may serve as an electoral case study for years to come. However, we mustn't confuse campaign ingenuity with substantive policy. President Paul's policy in absentia could be harmful and regressive for a nation at war, and it may be time that we analyze the good doctor's world view more closely.