When Barack Obama was being elected as the most powerful man in the world, James Bond was again laying claim to the same title, as the new 007 movie Quantum of Solace opened worldwide. Having watched both, on screens big and small, I�m now not sure which is the most realistic

When Barack Obama was being elected as the most powerful man in the world, James Bond was again laying claim to the same title, as the new 007 movie Quantum of Solace opened worldwide. Having watched both, on screens big and small, I'm now not sure which is the most realistic.

In a curious role reversal, the President-elect now seems more idealistic and more morally grounded than the fictional serial saviour of the human race. The world of Bond has darkened considerably. In Quantum of Solace, the powers-that-be in Washington and, to a lesser extent, London are all "realists" who cut deals with whomever it suits them to, good or bad. As Tim Pigott-Smith's Foreign Secretary puts it, if they only worked with the good guys, they wouldn't work with anyone at all.

In contrast, Obama sounds like Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith Goes to Washington, praising humankind for "fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so's he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, colour or creed". The syntax is Smith's, the sentiment 100% Obama.

How can it be that we have now become so cynical that even the escapist fantasy of 007 portrays democratic leaders as amoral, yet people all over the world have rejoiced that the American electorate have embraced idealism in the shape of Barack Obama? There is no contradiction. In dark times, we seek the light all the more. The fact that we have become so cynical is precisely why we are even keener to find a real-life hero to restore us.

The worlds of Bond and Obama are not diametrically opposed, anyway. The problem with the authorities in Quantum of Solace is not that they're realists, it's that they fail to see reality clearly. Without giving too much away for those who haven't yet seen the film, these characters' main mistake is to make deals with villains, not realising that there will be a price to pay for everyone further down the line.

In contrast, Obama looks like being more of a realist than his predecessor. Whereas Bush divided the world up into cowboys and outlaws, Obama is prepared to negotiate with almost anyone. For instance, Obama wants to engage with Iran, while Bush merely called it a member of the axis of evil.

Bush's problem was that he was not enough of a realist, and too much of an idealist with the wrong ideals. He had too much faith that America had a God-given mission to spread democracy around the world. The Bush government was an unholy alliance of misguided idealists and ultra-cynical disciples of Leo Strauss, the neocons' favourite philosopher, who argued political elites were justified in deceiving the masses with "noble lies". What Obama represents is therefore not the victory of idealism over realism but the hope for a realistic idealism whose enemies are the twin threats of cynicism and misguided moralism.

You can see how this realism is very much at the centre of each of the big moral challenges Obama has set himself. First, he has promised to close down Guantanamo Bay. This is long overdue, but the pragmatic case for closure is as decisive as the ethical one. Guantanamo simply loses America friends and alienates people, helping jihadi recruitment no end.

Withdrawing from Iraq is a similarly realistic step. And in Afghanistan, where Obama is promising to send more troops, it is even less clear whether principle is doing more work than pragmatism.

It is also hard to see Obama's drive towards greener energy as being a sign of an ethically led policy. In his speeches, Obama stresses that the main reasons for improving energy efficiency are to help the American economy and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Saving the planet gets a mention, of course, but the economic case for America to become less of a gas-guzzler is sealed without it.

Realism is therefore at the heart of Obama's programme for government - and that is as it should be. Realism and idealism can never be entirely fused in politics, but they can be roughly aligned. Problems arise when they decouple and one dominates, unchecked by the other. That's why, faced with the choice between the pessimistic realpolitik of Bond and the optimistic "hope" of Obama, for once reality beats fiction.