Who am I supposed to be angry at now?

Among the many reasons the original Star Wars trilogy was vastly preferable to the more recent prequel, one stands out for me this week: Rebellion is awesome.

Who doesn’t love the story of a small-but-courageous band of heroes standing up to and knocking over a powerful empire? It’s the kind of story that’s built into our national DNA, with George Washington and his Army prevailing over the British, and carrying forth into a modern pop-culture that glorifies Catcher in the Rye, James Dean, Braveheart and, yes, Han Solo. (Note to self: Must update pop cultural references.) We love rebels, outsiders and antiheroes. And we fancy that we’re on their side.

And sometimes that carries over into our politics. Embarrasingly, I am no exception.

In 2000, I had liberal leanings, but I don’t think I ever would’ve identified as a liberal. Had John McCain beaten George W. Bush and advanced to the general election, I might’ve voted for him — he seemed more authentically a “maverick” then — over the stiffly establishmentarian Al Gore. As it happened, I ended up voting for Ralph Nader. Way to stick it to the man, huh?

Bush’s ascension to the presidency didn’t bother me all that much, initially. Center-left versus center-right seemed barely more consequential than po-tay-to versus po-tah-to. But the administration’s post-9/11 outrages — the invasion of Iraq, its embrace of torture, the illegal warrantless wiretapping program — changed everything for me. I was a liberal, dammit, and I was angry.

And let me confess: The anger felt good. There’s no bliss quite like the bliss of self-righteousness.

Now my guys (the good guys, right?) are going to be in charge. And I’m wondering what’s going to become of my political identity.

Don’t get me wrong: My liberalism was never purely about opposition. I believe health care is a right, that government should help the poorest as much as it helps the richest, that torture and pre-emptive war are wrong, that gay individuals deserve the same rights that I do, and so on. From what I can tell, the new administration largely agrees with me.

Which is the problem: If my liberalism was never about opposition, it was still fueled by a sense of anger and rebellion that are going to be difficult — if not impossible — to sustain under a Barack Obama administration.

So what’s next?

I’m not interested in putting myself in a position where I defend every proposal or action coming out of an Obama Administration. That will be the temptation, since he’s the guy I wanted, but that way lies hackery. And I’d like to avoid hackery.

On the other hand, I’m not interested in permanent and unending opposition, either, since pure contrarianism is another form of hackery, when you get down to it.

What I’d like to be, as best as I can, is an honest broker. (Not that I’m brokering anything, really.) To defend Obama when he deserves, to criticize when necessary, and to acknowledge tough choices and ambiguity where they exist. Without, hopefully, being wishy-washy. It’s a tough line to walk; it’s almost enough to make a liberal feel wistful about the waning days of George W. Bush’s presidency.

But not quite.