The dual presidency

                There are two other theories of presidential power to consider. The dual presidency thesis is associated with an article penned by the political scientist Aaron Wildavsky. As the term implies, Wildavsky claims that we should analyse two presidencies (that of domestic policy and foreign policy). The President has of course more freedom to maneuver on the world stage than he does in the domestic sphere; where his hands are invariably tied and he must forge alliances with members of Congress. It should also be noted that public backing for the President can often be greater in the field of foreign policy than the domestic sphere.

                The dual presidency thesis was more prevalent in academia during the cold war. Since then, it has largely fallen out of favor because the influence of domestic factors upon American foreign policy has become more pronounced. Most informed commentators accept that the distinction between domestic affairs and foreign policy is much more blurred than it was in the past. In short, domestic considerations do not merely stop at the water’s edge. Furthermore, modern-day Presidents cannot assume that Congress will adopt an acquiescent approach to their activities upon the world stage. What Lyndon Johnson secured from Congress during the Vietnam War is simply no longer available to modern-day occupants of the White House – even during a period of unified government. Whilst the dual presidency thesis provokes thought, academic debate is still centered upon the imperial-imperiled argument.