Pity Barack Obama. At the tender age of 47, reality has begun to roost in his otherwise serene cerebrum. After years of bemoaning a world lost to contention, he was convinced that his elevation to the nation’s highest office could usher in a new era of global understanding and tranquility. It was a vision equal parts lion and lamb utopianism and flagrant self-aggrandizement – which is to say a typical conceit from the most messianic president since Woodrow Wilson. There’s only one problem: the world didn’t get the memo.

In the course of his campaign and the early months of his presidency, Obama’s curiously calibrated foreign policy has come into sharp relief.

It is, on one hand, a vision of romantic liberal internationalism not seen in the White House since the days of Jimmy Carter. From the tropical gulags of Cuba to the now-blood stained streets of Tehran, from the festering sore of human despair in Pyongyang to the tin pot dictatorship that is Venezuela, the president has held fast to the notion that totalitarian government is the product of a failure to communicate. Sit down with the mullahs, understand the plight of the Castro brothers and sympathize with the psychic trauma of Kim Jong Il’s quest to find the perfect gray pantsuit, and the dictatorial urge will wither. This is Obama as idealistic undergraduate – the man who sees four sides to every triangle.

On the other hand, there is Obama the “realist.” Realism is a proud, but increasingly blinkered, school of foreign policy thought that emphasizes the tendency of nations to act in a self-interested fashion. It is a callous and unforgiving worldview for the simple reason that it perceives the world to be callous and unforgiving. But its laudable emphasis on objective realities has a tendency to degenerate into cynicism and self-defeat.

Realists engineered the failed policy of détente towards the Soviet Union in the decade prior to Ronald Reagan’s bold (and successful) offensive aimed at bringing the USSR to destruction. Realists called for withdrawal from Iraq while ridiculing the surge’s possibilities for success. And now realist luminaries such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft influence the president’s thinking and their disciples occupy offices in the White House. This is Obama as chess player – the man who tempers Hawaiian optimism with Chicago grit.

Obama’s grand fusionist project has now had five months to play out on the world stage. And the result thus far has been familiar for any keen observer of this administration – an excess of ambition quickly followed by a paucity of favorable outcomes. If you doubt the conclusion, survey the world.

In Latin America, Obama extends an olive branch to Cuba. In return, Fidel Castro condemns America’s “torture” policies, doubtlessly on the grounds that cruelty ought to be pursued recreationally rather than as a matter of national security. The president grips and grins with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, calling him “mi amigo.” Obama’s buddy then forces the main leader of his political opposition to flee to Peru rather than be thrown in prison and threatens to shut down the last vestiges of the free press in his country. In Honduras, the military intervenes to prevent President Manuel Zelaya from dismantling the nation’s constitution. Obama refers to the actions as a “coup” (though they were actually taken to prevent a coup) and “illegal.” And thus does the best-selling author and Harvard Law graduate reveal how precarious his grasp of basic diction and essential constitutional law is.

In the Middle East, Obama promises a new relationship with the Islamic world built on a foundation of mutual respect. He sends a New Year’s greeting to the people of Iran and the mullahs laugh him off, rig an election and slaughter their people in the street. He goes to Cairo to spread his goodwill message and the Egyptian president pointedly notes that the Arab world is not interested in peace. He strong-arms Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to move toward a peace agreement with the Palestinians and a Hamas spokesman says, "recognizing Israel is completely unacceptable."

In Asia, Obama dispatches his Secretary of State to China with a message that the United States is willing to overlook the communist regime’s human rights abuses in exchange for cooperation on the financial crisis and climate change. In response, the Chinese government suggests the development of a new global reserve currency to supplant the dollar and gleefully anticipates the day when Obama’s cap and trade policies move the Chinese economy towards full employment. North Korea receives overtures of American cooperation and proceeds with nuclear tests and a planned Fourth of July missile launch toward Hawaii (the latter an almost farcical exercise in seeing how far the new president can be pushed).

Soothing words are nice. But actions matter more. Who has benefitted from Obama’s foreign policy stances? Latin American dictators, practitioners of radical Islam, and repressive Asian despots. And who has felt the sting of the backside of his hand? Those who advocate for democracy, sustainable peace and human rights. That is not a record to be proud of.

As his presidency proceeds, it will be an interesting to see whether Obama defines himself as more idealistic or realistic. At the moment, his policies are neither.