IN HIS first press conference following his decisive election victory this week, President Bush did his best to sound conciliatory when he talked about the foreign policy that provoked so much hostility around the world during his first administration. “I’ve made some very hard decisions . . . and I understand that in certain capitals and certain countries those decisions were not popular,” he said. That was an understatement.

Opinion polls suggest that America is more despised in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America than ever. Mr Bush’s acknowledgement that he has some diplomatic repair work to do foreshadows much activity in the coming months. Having been absorbed by domestic politics for the last five months, Mr Bush will soon embark on his first big foreign trips since the summer, visiting Latin America later this month and Europe soon after his inauguration in January.

There is some belief among European and other diplomats that this activity will presage a rather different approach in a second Bush term. They believe that difficulties in Iraq and financial constraints at home will force America to listen more actively to allies and the UN.

And there is a widespread view that the dreaded “neoconservatives”, a group of foreign policy thinkers who believe in the assertive use of US power to promote democratic change around the world, have been discredited. It was their confidence that American military force could remake the broader Middle East that is blamed in many parts for the debacles in Iraq in the last year.

Senior diplomats in Washington point to the waning influence of the Pentagon, seen as a bastion of neoconservative thought, especially through Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary.

The US, for example, has so far gone along with European diplomatic efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear programme, softening some of its rhetoric. In the interminable interagency struggles, the State Department has reasserted itself in important areas such as North Korea policy. The imminent demise of Yassir Arafat may also strengthen the hand of those who have been urging greater engagement by the US in the Middle East peace process.

But is there any firm evidence that Mr Bush’s second term will be radically different? Some personnel changes expected in the next few months will give a clue. White House officials say that powerful new foreign policy figures have emerged in the past year who do not share the neoconservatives’ faith in US power and its ability to remake the world.

Robert Blackwill, senior director on the National Security Council, has been an important force in Middle East policy this year and could be in line for promotion. He is something of a realist in foreign policy, sceptical about the feasibility of the aggressive promotion of radical change in the Middle East. Against that, Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, is expected to leave the Administration in the new year. Donald Rumsfeld seems more likely to stay at the Pentagon, suggesting that his influence over policy may revive.

What happens to Mr Wolfowitz will be the key. If, as his supporters would like, he becomes National Security Adviser, that would signal a continuing commitment to the neocon project. But if he leaves the Administration altogether, that will indicate something rather different. What happens to other influential neocons such as Lewis “Scooter” Libby, at present Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Douglas Feith at the Pentagon and John Bolton at State will also provide clues.

And yet all of these may not in the end mean all that much. What matters more will be the situation on the ground in Iraq. If the US remains bogged down in a fight with the insurgents for years, that reality will trump whatever ambitions the neoconservatives hold.

But one thing should not be in any serious doubt. Too much of the commentary on the Bush Administration has implied that policy has been driven by the ideological views of senior and middle-ranking officials, as though the President were simply a kind of neutral arbiter in the process.

But it was clear again this week that the basic thrust of US foreign policy in the last four years — the belief that America can, and should, use its power to promote democratic change in the Middle East — comes right from the top. Mr Bush is almost evangelical these days in his commitment to the liberation of those who live under despotic regimes, which he believes is not only right in itself but in the long run conducive to improved US security. On the campaign trail he repeatedly cited Afghanistan, where recent elections seem to have been successful, as an example of why that faith is justified; and he returned to that during his press conference: “You cannot lead this country and our world to a better tomorrow unless you also have a vision of a better tomorrow. And I’ve got one based upon a great faith that people want to be free and live in democracy.”

Although practical realities will surely intervene, Mr Bush’s aims, now reinforced by a significant electoral victory, will continue to make his foreign policy radical, revolutionary and extremely discomforting to those who would prefer a quieter life.

Times Recommends

• Mandela’s tribe threatens President Zuma
• The French empire strikes back
• Wife of cheating governor exacts a political revenge