Critically assess Wildavskys theory of the two presidencies - Essay Example

1.0 Introduction The American politics has always been characterized by critical analysis of the policies adopted by presidents and how these policies impact on the values, beliefs and perception of the American people. The way the Americans perceive the policies usually determine the popularity of presidents and whether they will only rule for one term or two terms. A retrospective analysis on the approaches taken by American presidents reveals that there exists a dichotomy in relation to how American presidents shuffle their political cards in their bid to push forwards certain agendas that they deem important for the American nation. The Dichotomy is clearly brought out in Wildavsky’s theory of Two Presidencies. A critical analysis of Wildavsky’s theory reveals that is attempts to heuristically simplify the administration of American presidents by looking at two opposing forces that determine the president’s use of power. Although it might seem as an intellectually fatal approach to simplify leadership using two opposing aspects, the theory of two presidencies by Wildavsky significantly reveal how institutions in American influence the approach taken by a president. In outlining the theory of dual presidencies, Wildavsky explained that although the American nation had one president at any particular time in practice, in theory there exists’ two presidencies (Renshon, 2003, p.276). In essence, Wildavsky sought to explain that president’s either concentrated on domestic policies or foreign policies. In addition he also emphasized on the fact that president’s preferred to concentrate on foreign policy because it was associated with more power and little interference from the congress (Henehan, 2003, p.13). From allied war campaigns against Germany and Japan during Roosevelt era, to the refusal by Clinton to pursue Osama Bin Laden and finally Iraqi and Afghanistan invasion during the Bush era the interplay of domestic and foreign policy issues emerge on one of the most sensitive policy issues; national security. Other issues that have impacted on both domestic and policy issues include immigration and drugs. The papers will critically asses Wildavsky’s theory with regard to the presidencies of President Franklin, D. Roosevelt, President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton to establish whether foreign and domestic policies operate as dichotomies or they operate in reciprocity. 2.0 Interplay between Foreign and Domestic Policies in the US According to Merrill (2009, p.12), the US foreign domestic and foreign policies are intertwined to the extent that it is usually difficult to discuss one without reffering to the other. Merril explains that their relationship rests wth their capcity to deifne aspects such as the national identity of Americans. Merril writes that “foreign policy plays a profoundly significant role in the process of creating, affirming, and discipling conceptions of national identity” (2009, p.13). In essence, Merril explains that foreign policy and domestic together function to impact on the perception of Americans on issues concerning national identity. An example is the way the politics of national security has unfolded especially after the September 11 attacks on U.S. soil. The perception of the American citizen was awakened by the extent to which U.S. foreign policy greatly contributed to national security. The realities of the 9/11 attacks perhaps reminded most policy makers of what had been mentioned by former American Predident Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson oulined that the objective of foreign policy was to consolidate the objectives of the domestic policies from a broader perspective (McCormick, 2010, p.11). The general realization is that the objectives of domestic policies could not be made effectively when there were non-functional or weak foreign policies. The situation has even become more compounded by globalization and the concept of global village. An issue like immigration laws affect both foreign and domestic policies because they define the acceptance by Americans of people from foreign countries and the impact these people will have on America’s domestic issues. Initially, the United Stats had preferred an isolationism policy where the leadership of the country concentrated on developing the country while contributing minimally to glbal politics. According to Kaufman (2010, p.57), the period between the end of 1st World War and the 2nd World War was marked by America’s withdrawal from active international politics. Furthermore, during this period the nation implemented strict immigration policies to regulate the number of people that moved into the country. However, being a country that was very significant in world politics the United States as pulled into what came to be 2nd World War that led to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by U.S. in 1945. The extent to which foreign and domestic policies interplay is therefore dependent on a number of factors some of which are beyond the control of presidents. However, one must still agree that the president is the major implementor of these policies because they represent his values and ambitions as the custodian of the American beliefs and democracy. The interplay between foreign and domestic politics is what perhps influenced Wildavsky’s cultural theory of dual presidency. He observed how different presidents handled this interplay and realized that despite the fact that there existed one American predsident at any one time the interaction between foreign and domestic policies issues together with the leadership approaches used by the president, led to the emergence of dual presidency (Kaufman, 2010, p.57). America was a key nation globally and the interests and values it upheld as a nation could only be protected when it adopted comprehensive foreign policies. One of the key foreign policy issues that has influenced U.S. foreign policy has been the propagation of ideologies that the U.S. considered as dangerous not only to the American nation but also to world peace. The interplay between the America’s dometic and foreign policies reveal that they are actually interrelated and in some instances so connected that determining the distinction becomes difficult. How then did Wildavksy concieve and construct the theory of dual presidency? When argue from the point of view of a dometic policy issue such as homeland security and foreign policy issue such as terrosm there seems to be reciprocating rather than operating as dichotomies. 3.0 National Security Since the Pearl Harbor bombings by Japan and the subsequent attack on U.S. soil by terrorists during 9/11 there have emerged domestic and foreign policy issues that have taken center stage in the U.S. politics, mostly requiring presidents to take bold actions if only to reassure Americans of their safety. 3.1 War on Terror According to Chomsky (2003, p.301) the official definition of terrorism adopted by the U.S. is The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. For purposes of uniformity the paper will adopt this definition when analysing the responces and approaches of Roosevelt, Clinton and Bush and the effectiveness with which the strateges they adopted dealt with policy issues related to terrorism. 3.2 Roosevelt and the Allied Nations That war on terror began with the administration of President Bush after the 9/11 attacks is utterly inaccurate. During the last years of his administration before dying in office, Roosevelt witnessed terror on American soil by the Japanese on pearl harbor. According to Heal (1999, p.17), Roosevelt served four terms as America’s president being the first president in America’s history to attain such a feat. During his years in office he managed to reshape the political environment in America with regard to foreign policies. In 1933 when Roosevelt came to power, the isolation policies adopted by the U.S. after the 1st World War had began to fade and the realities of ineffecient economic system hit the U.S. very hard with the collapse of the American stock exchange and the Great Depression. The America that Roosevelt inherited did not have the confidence it once had. Furthermore, there was the threat of Hitler and Japan joining forces and Russia was also headache to the security of the United States (Heinrichs, 2002, p.6). When Roosevelt came to power he knew that he had the mandate of restoring the confidence of Americans with regard to nationalism and identity. During his first five years he concentrated on strengthening the economy of America and structuring policies to alleviate the sufferings caused by the great depression (Theinl, 2010, p.8). Follwing the economic crisis in other parts of the world such as Europe Roosevelt realized that in order to restore the economic situaiton in the U.S. he hd to adopt foreign policies that supported his domestic policies for economic growth. However, he also realized that there were some countries like Germany that were frustrating these efforts (Howard, 2003, p. 51). Consequently, Roosevelt managed to convince the allied forces that the economic and political approaches being taken by Germany under the leadership of Hitler were selfish. Although many people criticize Roosevelt that he sidelined economic restructuring in the U.S. in favor of his foreign ambitions, Roosevelt’s plan had been to work together with other countries with similar challenges in order to strengthen America’s economic position. In essence, Roosevelt’s involvement in the 2nd World War was influenced by what he thought as terrorist nations who wanted to impose upon the world selfish ideologies such as Germany and Japan (Doenecke, 2005, p.3). Although Roosevelt did not leave to witness the victory against Germany and Japan, the structures he placed both administrative and foreign relations were later to be used by Truman to steer the economic situation of the U.S. and affirm its position in World politics. Although it might have seemed like Roosevelt favored foreign policies to domestic policies with regard to the dual presidency theory, the general realization is that he used foreign policy to create even greater economic opportunities for U.S. Roosevelt did this by working together with likeminded nations in the alliance to get rid of ideologies that would frustrate globale economy. Initially, Roosevelt’s plan was not to go to war per se but when Japan attacked pearl harbor he knew that the terror against U.S. being propagated by enemnies of internationalisation were real (Heinrichs, 2002). 3.3 The Clinton Administration The Clinton administration’s laxity on war on terror has always been blamed for the subsequent attack by terrorists against Americans on American soil. However, a closer analysis of his administration reveals that the foreign policies he adopted actually set the stage for the later capturing of Osama Bin Laden by the Obama administration throught the diplomatic ties Clinton formed with Sudan (Davis, 2007, p. 139). Although Clinto was not as obvious and direct on his war on terror, President Clinto was aware that America’s success in quelling terror was good for his domestic policies. In essence, Clinton was well aware that a nation that lacked confidence with regard to security of its citizens was limiting itself as to the economic developments it can make. Such a nation will spend most of its time looking at its back for signs of the enemy. By mid 90s the U.S. was already certain that Iraqi was engaging in a serious business of making weapons of mass destruction. Clinton wanted to affirm the security of Americans because without security other domestic economic development would have been difficult to achieve. According to Elshtain (2006, p.85), Clinton had actually intended to attack Iraq in 1998 to flush out the Saddam regime and the weapons of mass destruction but was actually prevented by two factors. The U.N. had promised to send inspectors to investigate whether the claims for the presence of weapons of mass destructoin were true. Clinton being diplomatic in nature decided to buy more time and wait for the report by U.N. although he was very certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The second reason was that Clinton was dealing with the Lewinsky issue at home and his influence on the congress has been affected significantly. However, by this time the Clinto administration had already engaged Iraq in missile attack. Some analysis erroneously state that the Clinton administration favored domestic policies to foreign policies. Although this might be true during his initial years in administration, Clinton later changed his tactics. Some of the highlights of Clinton’s domestic policies include his stance on the seclusion of homosexuals from the military, reduction of military spending to boost economic growth and reducing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid (Boyer, 2010, p.748). However, Clinton did not achieve much. For instance, he was forced to adopt a neutral stance on the admittance of gays and lesbians in the army using the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. The key mistake that Clinton made was that he thought that he could totally ignore foreign policies in favor of domestic policies. However, contrary to the era of Roosevelt when that could have been possible foreign and domestic policy issues had already become interrealted defying the dual presidency concept of Wildavsky. A president could use foreign policy issues to consolidate support in implementing his domestic policies but not the other way round. It is for this reason that some political analysts usually percieve the Clinton presidency as a weak one. Clinton was also not very successful in domestic policies on issues such as abortion and he was often forced to opt for neutrality. However, during his last years of administration Clinton made various amendments with regard to foreign policy. One of the approaches he took was to actively pursue America’s dream on preventing the making of weapon’s of mass destruction by Iraq and forging diplomatic ties with Sudan as a way of frustrating the plans of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda (Davis, The Global War on Terrorism: Assessing Americas Respone, 2002, p. 132). 3.4 Bush and Iraqi and Afghanistan War The alliances that had been forged by Roosevelt and the ensuing victory consolidated the position of the U.S. in global politics. This fact is evident when the Bush administration led allied forces in invasions against regimes in Iraqi and Afghanistan that were thought to be sympathizers of Terrorist groups (Cordesman, 2002, p. 3). Although Clinton was not able to mobilize the support of the allied nations, Bush madesure he took advantage and the war against terror perhaps ceased to take the sole perspective of a U.S. alone affair. Unlike Clinton Bush was overt in his war against terror. After the 9/11 attacks Bush was able to mobilize all the resources he needed to invade Iraq and Afghanistan in an effort to forcefully remove the regimes that were sympathizers of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. However, President Bush was to some extent able to balance on how he dealt with foreign policies because he knewthat the primary objective of pursuing foreign policies was to set foundation and consolidate domestic policies. The opening statement of his 2003 State of Union address he began by preparing the American people on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion less that 6 months later.In his speech he says that “we will answer every enemy and every danger that threatens the American people” (Media Mill Works, 2012). In the speech Bush goes on to outline his domestic priorities such as increased access to public education and t relief. The general realization is that Bush knew that he had to adopt strong and sustainalbe strategies on issues related to war against terror as a way of consolidating support for the policies he sought to adopt domestically. Americans have usually adopted a culture of viewing themselves as part of a global community instead of just American people. This is evident since the time of the Spanish Civil War when American citizens deliberately and against warnings by their government, flew to spain either support the government or the the rebels depending on their respective political beliefs (Howard, 2003, p. 83). Bush War on terror policies managed to consolidate his support at home and after 9/11 his ratings as a president even went up to 90%. However, president Bush also faced many economic drawbacks most of them caused by factors that were beyond his administration. Bush witnessed hurricane Katrina and the economic meltdown that led to foreclosure of homes both events drastically affecting the economy that was straining due to the increased military budget. Bush also received criticism on his policies on social security. Although Bush seemed to balance his foreign policy and domestic policy sreategies, he failed to harmonize them. In addition, as the American political environment grew domestic and foreign policies seemed to diverge that when a leader over concentrated on one the popularity of that leader seemed to fade. These findings indicate that the dual presidency theory might have functioned previously but was slowly becoming inapplicable (Graham, 2010, p.3). Looking at the war on terror policies that were adopted by Roosevelt, Clinton and Bush indicate that most American president’s prefer to concentrate on foreign policies. The foreign policy approach was consolidated by Roosevelt when he centralized much of the political power in Washington and took advantage of the lack of interest by congress on foreign policy issues. Roosevelt realize that he could execise his presidential power with minimal interference from the congress and use the successes there to consolidate his influence on domestic policy issues. During Clinton years the congress had changed significantly and their interest and knowledge on foreign issues had improved. Furthermore, a president could not completely use one approach either domestic or foreign approach to consolidate support. This fact is clearly evident during Bush administration wher overmephasis on foreign policy issues led Bush to be voted one of the worst presidents Americans have had. 4.0 War on Drugs War in drugs by the U.S. is also an issue that it both a domestic policy issue and a foreign policy issue. Much of the drugs that find their way into the American society are from other countries that either have weak policies that prevent the cultivation the raw materials for these drugs or that actually support the cultivation of the raw materials. As the U.S. adopts domestic policies to reduce drug addition, the country also looks at ways in which it can prevent the cultivation of these drugs in foreign countries and the entry of the drugs into the U.S. society (Friesendorf, 2007, p.8). 4.1 Clinton’s Administration War on Drugs The clinton administration was materialistic in ensuring that the war on drugs changed perspective from concentration on demand for drugs. The Clinton administration was the first to realize that targeting the demand for drugs domestically was not enough in the fight against drugs. Clinton’s first initiative was dubbed “Plan Colombia” was aimed at reducing the production of cocaine by the country and hence reduce the global supply. In essence, the Clinton administration sought to empower Columbia in the fight against drugs instead of tackling the problem alone (Fisher, 2006, p.153). Clinton administration was also materialistic in proposing that the war on drugs take a military perspective by strengthening governments in fighting drug cartels or implementing sanctions to countries that sold the weapons to the drug cartels. The general realization is that the approach by Clinton to employ a foreign approach to the fight against drugs had significant impact as compared to the previously adopted domestic policies. With regard to issues that touch on both foreign and domestic policy issues, the understanding is that when a president opts for the foreign policy approach the results are better. The realization is in line with Wildavsky’s postulation that president’s prefer to deal with foreign issues due to minimal interference by the congress. In addition, foreign issues consolidate the powers of the president and can be used in strengthening support for domestic policies . 4.2 Bush’s Administration War on Drugs Initially, president Bush was passive in the war againt drugs. In fact, he drew criticism from his approach to concentrate more on the regulation of the conventional treatment drugs instead of targeting the commonly abused drugs. In addition, when Bush appointed John Walters to the drug docket Bush was accused of ignoring the rehabilitation, “treatment and prevention” strategies in favor of the direct fight against drug barons and peddlers. America has always held the perception that the Latin countries are responsible for bringing drugs into the U.S. This fact was true but only to some degree. It would later emerge that Afghanistan was also a major contributor towards the narcotics circulating around the world. Most of the policies before 9/11 were domestic policies (Kleiman, 2011, p.271). However, after 9/11 atacks Bush prudently associated the war on drugs arguing that most of the terrorist groups around the world were being funded by money obtained from drug trafficking. Bush sought to associate terrorism with war on drugs and he was able to do that successfully. In 2003, the same year that the U.S. troops began their war on terrosim, president Bush was able to secure $ 98 million to be used in empowering troops in Colombia in their war against drugs. In essence, the approach that was previously adopted by Bush of concentrating on domestic policies did not go well with the citizens. However, when Bush adopted an foreign policy and connected it with the domestic policies against drugs he was able to gain popularity (Whitford, 2005, p.87). The general realizaiton from this observation during the Bush period the domestic policies and foreign policies were converging and the strategy to use one approach on issues that touched both was imprudent. In essence, the Wildavsky’s theory of dual presidency could not sufficiently address the state of things. However, the Wildavsky’s theory is still able to outline the reasons for preference by presidents on foreign policy in relation to domestic policies. 5.0 Conclusion Wildavsky’s postulation was that America experiences dual presidency situation where a president either adopts a domestic policy approach or a foreign policy approach. Although the appproach might have been applicable during the Roosevelt eras, the American nation has experienced a convergence of the domestic and foreign issues. The convergennce has made it dificult to separate foreign policy issues and domestic policy issues due to the position of the American nation globally and the psychological perception of Americans with regard to their role globally. The war against terror and the war against drugs are some of the issues that touch on both foreign and domestic policies. In stituation where America adopted domestic issues only, the policies either failed or they were met with little support from the citizens. In addition, in instances where a president overemphasizes on foreign issues, there is also bound to arise opposition. The dual presidency of Wildavsky is not totally accurate because foreign and domestic issues do not exist a dichotomies but in a reciprocity. The success of policies adopted by presidents is partly dependent on the approach taken to implement the policies. In addition, presidents should also adopt strategies that harmonize domestic policies and foreign policies regardless of the one that tops their respective priorities. References Boyer, P. S., 2010. Enduring Vision: A History of the American People from 1865. New Jersey: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Chomsky, N., 2003. Radical Priorities. Oakland, CA: AK Publishers. Cordesman, A. H., 2002. Salvaging American Defense: The Challenge of Strategic Overstretch. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Davis, J., 2002. The Global War on Terrorism: Assessing Americas Respone. Cleveland, OH: Nova Science. Davis, J., 2007. Africa and the War on Terror. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Group. Doenecke, J. D., 2005. Debating Franklin D. Roosevelts Foreign Policies, 1933-1945. Oxford, UK: Rowman & LIttlefield. Elshtain, J. B., 2006. Just War Against Terror: The Burden Of American Power In A Violent World. Washington, DC: Routledge. Fisher, G. L., 2006. Rethinking Our War on Drugs: Candid Talk About Controversial Issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Friesendorf, C., 2007. US Foreign Policy And the War on Drugs: Displacing the Cocaine And Heroin Industry. Milton Park, NY: Routledge. Graham, J. D., 2010. Bush on the Home Front: Domestic Policy Triumphs and Setbacks. Bloomington: Indiana Univresity. Heale, M. J., 1999. Franklin D. Roosevelt: The New Deal and War. New York: Routledge. Heinrichs, W., 2002. Threshold of War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Entry Into World War II. New York : Oxford University Press. Henehan, M. T., 2003. Foreign Policy and Congress: An International Relations Perspective. Michigan: University of Michigan. Howard, T. C., 2003. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Formation of the Modern World. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Kaufman, J. P., 2010. A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy. Santa Barbara, CA: Rowman & Littlefield. Kleiman, M. A., 2011. Encyclopedia of Drug Policy. London, UK: Sage Publications. McCormick, J. M., 2010. American Foriegn Policy and Process. New York: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Media Mill Works., 2012, May 6. Text of President Bushs 2003 State of the Union Address. Retrieved from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html Merrill, D., 2009. Major Problems in American Foreign Relations: Since 1914. New York: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Renshon, S. A., 2003. Good Judgment in Foreign Policy: Theory and Application. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Theinl, K., 2010. America’s Great Depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Attempt to Reorganize the Market with his New deal. NewYork: GRIN Publishers. Whitford, A. B., 2005. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda: Constructing the War on Drugs. Cleveland, OH: Routledge. Read More