In the midst of the world’s worst economic recession since the thirties’ depression, many saw in Barack Obama’s election as US president in 2008 the great hope for a new era. The Bush era’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq undoubtedly contributed to the dark mood all around and, when Obama came onto the scene, even as a presidential candidate, there was a swell of hope that things would take a turn for the better with this new, lanky, black young man at the helm of US affairs and, by extension, of global economics and politics. In the US, of course, history was made when a black man became the country’s president after nearly 150 years of the country’s civil war intended to free the US blacks from slavery. There was a feeling that this black professorial-looking and -speaking young man might be the saviour they were looking for. Besides the US, many people in other countries also had much invested in him, both in terms of turning the global economy around and putting an end to the orgy of wars in the Middle East threatening to turn into a global Armageddon of the old religious crusades between Islam and Christianity. So much so that Obama was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, before he had done anything to advance peace. Such was the optimism of the change from the disastrous Bush era that Obama not only seemed a breath of fresh air but also a beacon of hope in a beleaguered world. It might not be wrong to say that as candidate Obama became president and started on the task of changing the world, the hype came face to face with reality and was found to be sorely wanting. At home, there were two main issues. First, of course, was the state of the economy, with unemployment and underemployment at record levels. Subprime home lending had caused havoc with the social and economic lives of millions of people who were unable to service their mortgages. The banking and financial sectors were in a state of virtual collapse, requiring state bailouts. Indeed, in every sense of the word, the US was in dire straits — and Obama had promised to fix it all. Not surprisingly, people’s hopes were high about how this new whiz kid might be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat. Well, over the last five years, things have gotten a bit better but the state of the economy is still fragile and many are still looking for the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. Even after Obama’s re-election for another term with a narrow margin, losing heavily among the white voters, his magic wand is nowhere to be seen. There are varied explanations by all sorts of people for Obama’s failure to live up to his promise. In a long political profile of President Obama, David Remnick of The New Yorker has picked up an assortment of reasons proffered by many, such as: “He is said to be a reluctant politician: aloof, insular, diffident, arrogant, inert, unwilling to jolly his allies along the fairway and take a 9-iron to his enemies. He doesn’t know anyone in Congress. No one in the House or in the Senate, no one in foreign capitals fears him. He gives a great speech, but he doesn’t understand power. He is a poor executive. Doesn’t it seem as if he hates the job? And so on. This is the knowing talk on Wall Street, on K Street, on Capitol Hill, in green rooms — the ‘Morning Joe’ consensus.” With such a view of the president across a wide spectrum of people, no wonder President Obama’s charisma is not working. On another level, President Obama faced the unenviable task of how best to transition the reality of a certain decline in the US’s global position and its self-image as arbiter of the world. His preference for diplomatic initiatives on a whole range of issues, like his Cairo speech in 2009 to forge “a new beginning” between the US and the Muslim world, the unwinding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the interim nuclear agreement with Iran, seeking to stay out of the Syrian military imbroglio and so on are a recognition of the limits of US power. The contrast with the Bush period is illustrative when the then president’s close confidants talked of the US as an empire creating its own history as it goes along. Obama and his advisers do not talk in such rhetorical flourishes, even though they are hesitant to accept that the US is a declining power. As Anne-Marie Slaughter, who worked at the State Department under Hillary Clinton, is quoted as saying, “Obama has a real understanding of the limits of our power. It is not that the US is in decline; it’s that sometimes the world has problems without the tools to fix them.” Which means that Obama has to juggle through the “limits of US power” but, at the same time, project that power sufficiently to maintain credibility as a superpower. This is evident in the increasing use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen and other places where costs involved for the US are minimal but the projection of power quite impressive. Obama spells out his rationale on the use of drones to Remnick in this way: “I have a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe — “ from terrorists “intent on killing Americans — They operate in places where oftentimes we cannot reach them, or the countries are either unwilling or unable to capture them in partnership with us.” And pursuing them in the conventional ways would mean “that America could be fighting a lot of wars around the world”. In that case, “the costs in terms of not only our men and women in uniform but also innocent civilians would be much higher.” The alternative Obama has chosen is, “Where possible, we can take targeted strikes, understanding” the attendant risks in civilian casualties. To lessen these risks, “What I have tried to do is to tighten the process so much and limit the risks of civilian casualties so much that we have the least fallout from those actions. But it’s not perfect.” Obama might find some solace in his line of reasoning but, on the face of it, it is not working. Instead, it is deepening hostility among Muslims against the US, and the vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence continues. Within the US, this is the path of least resistance. The US people seem indifferent to drones strikes, as it does not involve boots (soldiers) on the ground. Obama has tried to grapple with the US’s multiple problems involving its troubled economy and overreach of power. He has sought to rally the nation behind him on a national agenda overriding partisan politics. The success, if any, has been limited. Considering the enormity of the task in the midst of the country’s partisan and fractious politics, combined with a dollop of racism against the country’s first black president, it was always going to be a tremendous challenge. With Obama soon becoming the lame duck president, he might not have any political capital left to even consolidate some of his gains, like the Obamacare health insurance for millions of uninsured US citizens. The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au