Until the last few months, it has been possible to wonder if Barack Obama and his stirring admonition of "Yes, we can" were failing. There seemed to be little accomplishment to grasp onto there. Even American liberals, who were supposed to be enchanted by his magic, were wondering what had gone wrong.
But now, step by cautious step, the new post-Cold War America (a little late, but that's the way the world works) is falling into a distinctly unmartial cadence under Obama's hand. A sense of what he wants to do, and why and how, has been sneaking up on us.
I know that I was disappointed in the beginning of his administration over his seeming lack of personal and political anger over the way Wall Street had bluffed all of us. Over and over I told my friends, "He has to hang someone!" Of course, I was referring to a theatrical "hanging" -- putting one of those miserable cheats in the world of hedge funds and the credit-default-swaps up for shame -- but that did not occur. He would have gained immeasurably by it.
Yet now, if you read the business pages of the major papers, or The Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times, you see stories of those slow-motion "hangings" every day. Companies are being challenged; the scoundrels prosecuted by an American court, or humiliated before their people.
One of the latest has been former senator and New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, who gave us the immortal words, "I simply don't know where the money is." It seems that his investment company, MF Global, misplaced an estimated $1.2 billion of clients' monies. Senators said he was the first of their brothers to be forced to testify to his manipulations in their own sacred house.
What one can now see is the degree to which Obama has built up a cautious, even prudent, but unyielding rhetorical campaign against Wall Street. Others are doing the dirty work. Read Time magazine's remarkable cover story of Feb. 13 on "The Street Fighter," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York, who has won 56 convictions, with no losses, causing "some high-paid Wall Street heads to roll" in "post-meltdown America."
The administration has been equally active, but behind the scenes, on a U.S. plan on mortgages. The New York Times reported on its front page this week the administration finalizing a multibillion-dollar settlement to address foreclosure abuses.
When it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- unquestionably the worst acts of President George W. Bush's administration -- one can first also get tied up in confusion over President Obama's initial efforts.
He had talked big during his campaign, spoke against the Iraq war and, for some reason that now seems less admirable than before, called the war in Afghanistan "the good war." But after he was elected, the Obama trademark of "not much happening" seemed to be printed all over both wars. Indeed, at one point, the president announced he was sending thousands of American troops to Afghanistan in order to withdraw them the next year.
But as it turned out -- and not without pain -- America has withdrawn most of its troops from Iraq, is withdrawing earlier than planned from Afghanistan, and has cut back its huge military budget, acknowledging the military's part in the mounting American debt.
The withdrawals were inevitable, given the sheer foolishness of trying to transform poor and politically twisted societies in our name. But one has to wonder whether, had Obama ruled more in a populist manner and called the American people to action, they would have been even more difficult.
A true populist demagogue would have ranted and raved, and probably quickly fallen into his enjoyment of more wars. In the case of Libya, the president showed how his type of politics can work by eschewing any idea of troops on the ground in favor of NATO air cover for the rebels.
One can trace his approach through his attitude toward education, toward new industries like that exemplified by Microsoft and Google, to talk about the environment and conservation, to true equality among the races, and to the changes in American attitudes as a whole.
One can rightly ask whether his lawyerly approach can continue to work or whether nations will, or must, resort eventually to undiluted force. One can say, "This is not Hawaii, after all, where conciliation and negotiation among human beings is primary."
When Barack Obama steps down from the presidency, whether a year from now or five years from now, Americans will surely find that the conversation in the country has changed. Perhaps Americans, too, have changed, with a deeper understanding of a world transforming before our eyes.
