A Reassessment of the Two Presidencies Thesis

Abstract

THER ARE TWO PRESIDENCIES, wrote Aaron Wildavsky in 1966one for domestic affairs and the other for foreign and defense policy. Since World War II,' Wildavsky contended, have had much greater success in controlling the nation's defense and foreign policies than in dominating its domestic policies.' In domestic affairs, presidents are sometimes frustrated by congressional resistance and counteroffensives, but foreign affairs have historically been a presidential preserve. Wildavsky also considered the president better equipped than Congress to direct foreign policy and also argued that the imperatives of the office force any president to become more concerned with international than with domestic problems. Quoting Kennedy to the effect that Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us, Wildavsky concluded that for presidents, Foreign policy concerns tend to drive out domestic policy.2 Wildavsky's now-classic essay was written more than a decade ago, and it is a gross understatement to say that much has transpired since then. Events have conspired to undercut certain of his argu-