It was a night that demonstrated the sheer drama of American democracy (if not the efficiency of its exit polling industry). Like a play in several parts, the presidency appeared first to be snatched away from George W. Bush and was then, as the actual results became clear, returned to him. The complications of the “provisional” ballot papers in Ohio, malfunctioning machinery in Iowa and other difficulties in New Mexico served only to delay the hour of victory. After an extraordinary campaign, Mr Bush will take the oath of office once more on January 20. His partisan opponents can no longer paint him as an “illegitimate” resident of the White House.

In one sense, it could be argued that the President won a statistically modest victory. His margin in the popular vote and probable tally in the electoral college are the smallest for a president securing a fresh term since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. In the aftermath of a very slick Republican convention two months ago, Mr Bush and his senior advisers thought that he might storm to a substantial personal victory. This did not occur in large part because John Kerry proved to be a gritty competitor. His smooth performances in the three presidential debates put him back into the race. He became a more persuasive individual on the campaign stump than his critics had expected.

For Mr Bush, ironically, small has meant big in terms of his triumph. He won more votes than any other candidate in the history of the presidency. He also, crucially, obtained an absolute majority of the total votes cast — a feat that eluded Bill Clinton in both of his campaigns for the Oval Office.

Mr Bush’s personal popularity in the South was such that his party managed to snatch five Senate seats in that region. If this was not enough, Tom Daschle, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, was defeated in South Dakota. The Republicans also extended and entrenched their majority in the House of Representatives. This is a truly stunning political outcome.

The paradox of Mr Bush’s endorsement at the polls is that he is now free of the constraints imposed by voters. He should consider this a liberation and an extraordinary opportunity. He can serve one more four-year term in Washington and has the capacity to shape his legacy like few American politicians before him. He must seize that chance. He can advance an imaginative agenda for himself and his party.

His first task at home is to display considerably more fiscal responsibility in the coming term than during Bush I. There is a respectable argument for much of the tax cut package that Mr Bush offered his fellow citizens. Without it, economic recovery after September 11, 2001, would surely have been a more haphazard enterprise. In other respects, it should be acknowledged, the President has been too content to provide cosy subsidies to distinctly undeserving causes. Mr Bush has pledged to cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2008. He should be prepared to adopt and then to meet a somewhat more rigorous target.

The President must also take more interest in two key policy spheres that straddle domestic and foreign affairs. The Administration has been right to point out that many parts of the Kyoto treaty are unrealistic and are more a fashion statement than a plausible strategy to deal with global warming. Mr Bush’s backing for market-based technological solutions here is sound. It has, though, been followed through on a fleeting basis. He needs to provide a deeper vision on America’s dependence on imported oil that might allow him to take the initiative in the international community and end an unhealthy reliance on unpredictable supplies. He may find Tony Blair a useful ally on this (as on other issues) in the months ahead.

The President must also invest his political capital in the pursuit of a comprehensive free trade agreement. Mr Bush showed an unattractive willingness to flirt with protectionism over steel and, more significantly, agricultural subsidies, in his quest for another term in office. Now that he knows that he will not have to face the electorate again, a bolder stance on cutting tariffs is essential. It would be in the best interests of all Americans and, importantly, of the poor of the Third World.

The Middle East will need concerted attention. This President has not “cut and run” on Iraq, nor should there be any question of him doing so having been re-elected. It is absolutely vital that the two rounds of elections scheduled for next year pass off as smoothly as possible and that a path to democracy and development for Iraq is followed. It may be wise to increase the numbers of US troops in Iraq over the next two months to put down what continues to be a bloody if unrepresentative insurgency. It would also be sensible for Mr Bush to ask a Congress composed of his sympathisers for extra resources not just to cover military costs but also to allow an at times tardy reconstruction drive to make tangible progress.

In tandem, the next Bush Administration should be prepared to launch a new peace initiative between Israel and the Palestinians. The brave decision by Ariel Sharon to withdraw Israeli soldiers and settlements from the Gaza Strip should be treated as the bold move that it is, and built upon. A second-term President can take risks which are significant, while a first-term President has to keep an eye on re-election. The next secretary of state must be empowered by the President to produce new plans for the region.

Even if Mr Bush were to do all this and more, there would still be some who belittle him or doubt the sincerity of his motives. That is unfortunate. The President should not waste time trying to appease or win over those who have no time for him. There is the chance, perhaps, that with the passage of time the qualities which Americans see in this politician will become more obvious to others. Mr Bush must exploit the prominence that he has been given for four more years.