Let's be honest, neither David Cameron nor Gordon Brown are instantly recognisable as a British Barack Obama. There haven't been goat herders in Surrey or Fife for a long time. Yet last week's victory was not simply a victory for an extraordinary individual; it was also a victory for a body of ideas. As the Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman observes: "This year's presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies - and the progressive philosophy won."
At the core of Obama's campaign was a belief that only progressive politics had the answers to the challenges of the time. Relentlessly, he made the case for government action in responding to the problems faced in the economy, in energy and environment policy, in education and in healthcare.
This was the rock on which his soaring rhetoric was built. He understood, and the American people believed, the change that was required, but a call for change is meaningless unless you set out clearly what change is necessary. Obama offered both a convincing analysis and a credible response.
He understood that around the world we are seeing the collapse of not just bankrupt institutions, but also of a bankrupt Right-wing ideology. In contrast, to observe the Republican campaign was to see a brave man rendered voiceless by a Right-wing philosophy that disdains government, holds greed in esteem and helped create the crisis in the first place.
Obama knew that this was not the time for government simply to get out of the way. He was decried by opponents as a socialist and a redistributor. But he kept making the case for expanded healthcare, for supporting the unemployed and for progressive taxation. This was the change that the American people endorsed.
His victory confirms that what has happened in recent months has raised fundamental questions about the right relationship between markets and governments, between economics and politics, between wealth and power. And in this process it is Conservatism that has been found wanting.
The University of Chicago gave the world Hayekian free market economies. It took a politician from Chicago to confirm the end to that era of the old Right. As Labour, we always rejected it as the enemy of the good society - but recent months have confirmed it to be the enemy of the good economy, too.
The Right - on both sides of the Atlantic - is disoriented and diminished by recent global events. David Cameron, like John McCain, finds himself stranded in the wrong place: you can't privatise, deregulate or even nudge your way out of a global financial crisis.
It is arguable that Britain needs Labour responses today even more than in 1997. For in this uncertain world progressive ethics of fairness, stewardship and co-operation have come of age. These are the values that can ensure that we come through these tough times stronger not weaker.
So how can Labour translate ideological strength into electoral success? Some points are already clear: modern elections are won by a fusion of change and substance. In the next election we will have substance because we have experience and a serious leader. And we show substance as we confirm to the electorate that we understand that the world has changed, and we have the ideas and the policies that can equip Britain to master those changes.
Few this summer imagined that the new Glenrothes MP would be Labour. But politics on both sides of the Atlantic has changed. Resolve, not fatalism, is the mood of Labour this autumn.
What will determine our party's future is whether this winter and beyond we master this new politics of a new era. It is not inevitable, but our values equip us well. Can Labour really win the next election? To borrow a phrase from the new president-elect: "Yes, we can."
Yes, we can.
