Donald Trump will return to the White House.

He’ll have a majority in the Senate, and possibly in the House.

And he has a mandate of sorts, having won not just the Electoral College, as in 2016, but also, unlike eight years ago, the popular vote.

For some people, Trump’s triumph promises a brighter future with a more robust economy and a more secure southern border.

For others, his victory is an existential threat to America.

Most likely, though, things won’t change anything like as dramatically as his fans and his foes sometimes seem to believe, an unfortunate effect of the exaggerated rhetoric from both sides that’s greatly amplified by social media.

The president of the United States remains the most powerful position in the world, to be sure.

But presidents can’t tinker with the economy, or the Constitution, like a child experimenting with a chemistry set.

Presidents don’t control the federal coffers, either. That’s Congress’ job.

And notwithstanding Trump’s boast, prior to his 2016 election, that he would “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., the gargantuan federal government’s penchant for spending money has expanded rather than contracted since.

That’s a trend Trump shares with every other president, Democrats and Republicans alike, since Bill Clinton.

The federal government had a budget surplus for four straight fiscal years — 1998-2001 — largely because the economy was booming and because Clinton, a Democrat who had to deal with Republican majorities in the House and Senate during his second term, negotiated the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Trump might not need a bipartisan deal if the GOP controls Congress. In that case the fault, if his administration doesn’t trim the budget behemoth, is likely to lie with him and his party.

Although the president’s influence on the economy is limited, the officeholder has a unique chance to affect the nation’s mood and to moderate the volume of its conversation.

Trump’s record since he entered politics in 2015 suggests he will not take advantage of this opportunity.

With a 2-1 record as a candidate, and having won so recently, Trump presumably has reason to believe his noxious brand of bombast and braggadocio is integral to his success.

But he also seems to enjoy defying expectations.

Were Trump to show even a smidgen of respect for his opponents, to display a modicum of statesmanship, he might leave his most zealous critics floundering for a cogent argument and sounding, with their hyperbolic talk of dictators and fascists, even more hysterical than they did during the campaign and in the few days after the election.

Trump’s speech the day after the election was, by his standards, conciliatory. He thanked those who voted for him, but he also pledged to work on behalf of all Americans.

This is standard political speechmaking, to be sure.

Trump, though, rarely if ever follows standard political orthodoxy.

Expecting a single address, and one given during the afterglow of victory, to mark a significant shift in his style is probably an exercise in excessive optimism.

But the chance remains, regardless.

A well-crafted and thoughtfully delivered inauguration speech would be a welcome introduction to Trump’s second term. It would also serve as an invitation for all Americans, including his most vociferous critics, to approach the next four years with optimism rather than despair.