The U.S. has for a long time been the greatest power in the world. In the last decade its hold on power started to wane, and today it is necessary to take into account the way in which different balances are developing. The old rules of the game no longer apply. The economic decline of the country in the face of the rise of the far-east, the clumsiness of the Bush administration, and the neglected social emergency have led to a point of no-return. It is time for the U.S. to recognise that it cannot claim the status of unquestioned leader of the world anymore. Nonetheless people, overwhelmed by the economic crisis, have to face too many problems in every-day life to be excessively worried about this. In November’s presidential elections, the Americans did not vote on the basis of the foreign policies proposed by the presidential candidates, but because of concerns related to the domestic reality.

The word “change” was probably the most bandied about during Barack Obama’s campaign, and change is what America is looking for. The problem is that the change proposed by Obama and hoped for by his people is something completely different from what the rest of the world expects. Though it may seem terrible to the outside world for Obama not to voice objection to situation in Palestine, it is less dangerous for him to act shyly in this case than to appear slow to react in deciding about issues such as those related to the national health service, because the people of his country are more interested in the latter rather than the former.

Oliver Harvey seems to commit the same mistake as those people who expect Obama to change the world for the better by merely turning upside down everything that has been achieved or accomplished by who came before him. This is sadly not the case. It is important to remember that Obama is the president of the United States of America, and it is only really the Americans who have the right to be disappointed.

When people in America think of Obama, they think of him as the president of their own country. They think of him as the right person to heal the wounds of the country, not those of the world. Obama is America's president. The rest of the world cannot think of him as their saviour. It is this aspect that reveals how Obama and “his predecessor” cannot share identical foreign policy positions. They deeply differ in the way they have to handle international relations, because, while Bush was the leader of a bold and proud country, Obama will have to be the shepherd of a humbled and worried people.

So far, the steps taken by the new president appear to be positive. It is not possible to define as “disappointing” the decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp or the launch of his “Green New Deal”, but at the same time is too soon for the American people to assess whether they are satisfied or not. Until now it is only possible to try to understand the reasons behind certain decisions. As for foreign policy, for example, more than “lack of moral courage”, the right definition for Obama’s attitude up to now can only be “prudence”. It is not to be forgotten that politics is a tricky game and it is often necessary to rely on compromise and moderation. By acting too boldly, just at the beginning of his mandate, he could easily undermine political support. In this way, he would endanger his project for changing America. Having received a popular mandate by enthusiastic and hopeful American people, this is not what he is aspiring to.