Three years ago, in 2008, when the United States was in a financial crisis, many people couldn't help but feel passionate and tearful as they listened to Obama's speech in Chicago after his election victory. Like President Roosevelt, Obama took on the hopes of Americans. In 2012, the election battle will begin again, and the "dreams" that Obama promised to the American people have already faded quickly. "In 2008, Americans were anxious but still full of hope," said William Goesten, a senior researcher at the Brookings Institute. "The American middle class increasingly feels disconnected from economic development." An economy that relies on consumer spending to stimulate growth cannot achieve economic recovery if the economic conditions of ordinary consumers continue to deteriorate. The wealth gap in the United States has become increasingly evident over the past 30 years. Although many people do not agree with the solutions proposed by the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, the anger expressed by these demonstrators resonates with the public. Both conservatives and liberals are equally angry about the government bailing out Wall Street but not helping ordinary citizens trapped in mortgage troubles. Both the "Tea Party" movement and "Occupy Wall Street" express strong dissatisfaction with the government, but the difference is that the "Tea Party" movement almost dominated the political landscape of the United States, helping the Republican Party regain control of the House of Representatives. However, despite the large scale of "Occupy Wall Street," it failed to bring about policy-level adjustments. Nevertheless, Justin Logan, Director of Foreign Policy at the Cato Institute, once stated in the magazine "Foreign Affairs" that unprecedented fiscal deficits and difficulties in the financial system have reduced the United States' practical capabilities on the international stage. Altman believes that if Mexico's economic collapse in 1994 were to happen again, whether the U.S. would intervene is questionable. Even in key strategic areas like Pakistan, neither the U.S. nor Europe would likely provide significant economic assistance. However, there is no doubt that the U.S. remains the most powerful country in the world, and China's strength is largely confined to the economic aspect. Although the U.S.' economic difficulties have caused its influence to decline, more and more American citizens are dissatisfied with the U.S. continuing to bear the role of global policeman. "If voters feel harmed by such policies, for example, being conscripted or paying war taxes, they might express such demands through elections," Logan said. "However, the U.S.' global military involvement does not require such sacrifices from the public, and political elites can guide public sentiment. When voting, voters usually don't pay too much attention to these issues." The U.S.' military power remains strong, but they need to be involved almost everywhere globally. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, global anti-terrorism campaigns, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, restricting Iran from possibly developing nuclear weapons, maintaining their strategic dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, and preventing China from challenging the existing order in Asia. Such long front lines inevitably incur huge costs, and the U.S.' dominant position globally will undoubtedly be constrained by its economic difficulties in the future. However, Goesten still has confidence in maintaining its global hegemonic status. "The UK withdrew its troops globally in the 1970s," he said, "but the U.S. will absolutely not do so." Graphic by Jiang Haoming