ABSTRACT
SOME GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE TWO PRESIDENCIES For analytical purposes, we can divide the impact of presidential actions into two broad areas, the foreign and the domestic. In the past, it has been argued that presidents enjoyed much greater freedom of action in foreign, as opposed to domestic, affairs. Indeed, in a now-classic article published back in 1966 titled “The Two Presidencies,” Aaron Wildavsky found that between 1948 and 1964 a president’s foreign policy initiatives were supported by Congress approximately 70 percent of the time, in contrast to domestic initiatives, which achieved only 40 percent support. 1 Wildavsky was struck by the president’s apparent ability “to control defense and foreign policies and so overwhelm those who might wish to thwart him.” 2 His concept of “two presidencies” has not gone unchallenged, however. On the contrary, in the last fifteen, other scholars have put his thesis to the test and come up with results that in varying degrees raise serious questions about the concept of two presidencies. These challenges include the contention that the concept was never valid; that it was valid only during the (Dwight) Eisenhower presidency; or that it was evident only in Republican presidencies. 3 Other scholars, meanwhile, have examined the evidence and, depending on the particular study, found strong or partial support for the two presidencies concept. 4 The latest round of studies on the subject concludes that the two presidencies’ effect begins to decline in the post Vietnam period and continues into the post-cold war (1990-1998). 5 There are, however, some interesting patterns within this overall trend. Minority presidents (i.e., those whose party does not control Congress) appear to be more successful in winning foreign than domestic policy votes, although this too has declined in recent years. 6 Democratic presidents, meanwhile, are more successful on defense issues than are their Republican counterparts, whereas Republican presidents do significantly better on foreign policy issues (excluding
trade and foreign aid) than do Democratic presidents. 7 In short, the totality of the evidence suggests that the two presidencies’ effect has been largely, though not completely, eroded. We now consider those factors that have in the past given presidents added leverage in foreign affairs, as well as why many of them no longer have the potency they once did.
