Wildavsky’s two Presidencies in New Light

Michelle Ross
PO 510
Final Paper
Professor Kriner
May 8, 2007
INTRODUCTION

Domestic Presidency; Weakening over Time:

International Presidency; Stronger than Ever

The two passages in the Constitution that have provided the basis for the expansion

of presidential authority are Article II, Section 1, which grants “the executive Power” to

the president, and Section 3, which makes the president responsible for the enforcement

of federal laws, “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” And that he may

receive foreign ambassadors, ensuring presidential duties in Foreign Affairs (Nelson).

The uncertainty in the Constitution about the president's powers reflects the

ambivalence of the framers of the Constitution over the office they were creating. Still,

The President of the United States of America, by virtue of formally granted

constitutional powers, has several significant leadership roles. While these roles are

varied and diverse, they can generally be divided into two large areas of authority and

responsibility, domestic policy and foreign affairs. The two realms of presidential activity

are distinct and vastly different. The degree reflected off the American public is vast, and

yet the degrees of success within each of these two subdivisions have varied over time.

Aaron Wildavsky refers to these two subdivisions, as the "two presidencies.” These two

presidencies have emerged over time shaping Presidential duties and powers in two

sectors, the domestic stage and the international stage. They derive their strength and

resilience from the ambiguity of the contract of constitutional powers. Presidents also

have incentives to push this ambiguity relentlessly to expand their own powers, through
unilateral action and International relations (Moe, Howell). Wildavsky contended that,

“Presidents have had much greater success in controlling the nations defense in foreign

affairs than dominating its domestics politics” (Lee).

The presidency over time has weakened in the domestic sector and inversely

strengthened its power in foreign affairs; this is a direct result of the gradual increase of

the American public’s distrust in the White House. Unfortunately for the man (or woman)

elected to the highest office in the United States of America, they automatically fall

victim to the public eye and constant scrutiny of the media. One would not find this fact

so excruciating if one had nothing they were ashamed of, and, or nothing to hide.

Unfortunately, as time has shown, the more a leader is scrutinized the more likely they

are to slip up, or for their slip up to be made public. Presidential scandals, mishaps and

mistakes have only accumulated throughout the years and have led the American public

on a roller coaster ride of distrust (Rodman). Gradually the public has lost faith in the

Executive with each blunder the different administrations have faced. The president has

greater freedom of action in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs, and will give more

emphasis to foreign policy when facing domestic political attacks (Rodman).

The increase of mass media coverage, and the increase of public scandals, has led

the office of President of the United States on a downward spiral in a loss of domestic

power. The president has become a more powerful actor on the international stage,

especially, exerting influence over American foreign relations much more than at home

in domestic affairs (Wildavsky).

Four separate instances in the history of United States Presidencies, dating back to

even the early nineteen hundreds, highlight the most significant times the highest office
of America has misled and deceived the public. Wildavsky argues that presidents have a

much easier time exercising power in foreign affairs than on domestic policy. Wildavsky

claims that for the president foreign policy concerns tend to drive out domestic policy.

The reaction of the public, and the increased coverage by the mass media has

permanently tarnished the faith of the public in domestic presidential power. Plain and

simple, how can the public be willing to trust a president if they are known to be deceitful

in their actions.

Media Coming to Power

Over time, media has become significantly more powerful in influencing public

perspective, especially with in the political arena. “The media has always played a

powerful role in politics,” says Dr. Roderick Hart. Before the radio, there was the penny

press. Even back then, the media was important. Some of the recognizable elements of

modern campaigning can be traced to the widespread use of radio in the 1930s and ‘40s

when Franklin Roosevelt instituted his fireside chats. Soon the president and presidential

candidates were addressing citizens, in a conversational manner over the radio waves as

their medium of advertisement. From Ronald Reagan’s charisma, Kennedy’s golden boy

image to Al Gore’s stiffness and George W. Bush’s swagger, the public’s perception of a

politician and their personality via the media has been driving voting choices for decades

(Hart).

Unfortunately this instantaneous form of communication does not always favor the

Presidency. As well as being able to benefit the highlights of a campaign, the media

instantly publicizes flaws. Corruption and scandals involving the highest office of the
United States Government have been increasingly publicized over time (Dayan). Today

there are more outlets for ways in which the public can easily attain any coverage they

desire. Today, according to CNN Reports on Media outputs Capturing Public, there is not

only television and radio, with various stations on each medium that cover political

gossip twenty four hours a day, seven days a week; there are pod-casts, computer

generated news sources, streamlining billboards, cell phones, pda, and thousands of

magazine sources to choose from. All of which are extremely abundant, and within an

arms reach at any point throughout the day of an average American. This high frequency

of information attainability has led to a significant loss of domestic confidence in the

office of the president. Thus forcing the president to regain his power with in US foreign

relations on the international stage (Dayan).

MAJOR SCANDALS ACCUMULATING

Warren G. Harding 1921

In 1921 Warren G. Harding led the public on its first wide spread corruption

scandal that became the ultimate catalyst for public distrust, and thus the gradual loss of

power and respect of the Executive. The Teapot Dome Scandal, of Warren G. Harding’s

presidency began in 1921 when Harding, in a move subsequently deemed illegal by the

Supreme Court, transferred responsibility for naval oil reserve lands to the Department of

the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall went on to exploit those rights for

his own gain. In 1922 he secretly granted exclusive rights to the Teapot Dome reserve in

Wyoming to the Mammoth Oil Company in exchange for cash and no interest loans. He

granted rights to the Elk Hills and Buena Vista reserves in California to the Pan
American Petroleum Company in 1921–1922 for similar compensation (Bates). Harding

soon realized no secret is safe in Washington. The scandal came to light with

congressional demands that the leases be formally publicly abolished. Subsequent

investigations led to the arrest, trial, and conviction of his Secretary of the Interior. This

was the first conviction ever for an active cabinet member (Bates). The constant spotlight

on his administration soon revealed that this was the most corrupt collection of officials

the public could handle to that date (Caesar).

Congressional investigations into the scandals and corruption that characterized

his administration eventually sent two of his cabinet members to jail for bribery, while a

third was tried and acquitted of conspiracy charges (Bates). Harding's most lasting legacy

is the addition of this "teapot dome" to the American political vernacular as a synonym

for public sector corruption. The public was shocked and found it difficult to digest the

fact that such high elected officials could embody such a level of corruption. When

Harding passed away, Calvin Coolidge took office as his Republican successor. His

second term midterm elections did not fair in his favor, the public responding and asking

for change. Although the Republican Party retained the majority in the House and the

Senate, the spread dipped further and further and the Republicans lost over 12 total seats

(US Census Bureau). As constant media coverage was not as full force as we know it to

be today, American’s held their radio news broadcasts and newspapers in high regard

(Hart). Television had not yet become all the rage.

Richard Nixon 1972

The scandal that began the collapse of the Nixon presidency began on June 17,

1972, when five men, all employees of Nixon's reelection campaign, were caught

breaking into rival Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington,

DC. The intruders and two other accomplices were convicted of burglary and wiretapping

in January 1973. It soon became evident, from hints that emerged at the trial and other

details revealed in a series of articles by the Washington Post, that the break-in had had

the approval of higher-level government officials who were attempting to cover up their

involvement (Caesar).

In April 1973, with a Senate investigation underway, several top

Nixon aides, including H. R. Haldeman and John D. Erlichman resigned over the scandal,

and White House counsel John Dean III was fired. Dean subsequently testified during

televised hearings beginning in May, exposing Nixon's participation in the Watergate

cover-up and massive illegalities in Republican fundraising in 1972. The hearings also

revealed that since 1971 Nixon had recorded conversations and telephone calls in his

office (BBC). The president, however, refused to turn the tapes over to the Senate

Watergate committee, citing executive privilege. In Oct. 1973 Nixon ordered Elliot

Richardson the attorney general, to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who had

subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson chose to resign instead. Richardson's assistant,

William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was himself fired. Finally, it was the

solicitor general, Robert Bork who fired Cox. The incident, led to widespread calls for

the impeachment of President Nixon (BBC).

 President Nixon's behavior, his cover-up of the burglary, refusal to turn over

evidence, and the erosion of the public's confidence in his administration, led the House

Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The

document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury,

bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. Shortly thereafter,

Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974 (BBC).

Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by Vice President Gerald R. Ford,

who a month later issued a full pardon to Nixon for any crimes he might have committed

in office, thus eliminating the possibility of future prosecution. A number of other

administration officials served time in prison for their offenses, including former attorney

general a former FBI agent who helped plan the Watergate break-in (Caesar).

As important as Watergate was in political history, it was perhaps equally important

in media history. It is evident that the media’s role was instrumental in Nixon's downfall.

The Washington Post decided to make the Watergate break-in a major moral issue,

igniting a firestorm of media frenzy that was followed by the rest of the media on the east

coast (Johnson).

Television and newspapers publicized the story and, perhaps, even encouraged a

more diligent investigation. But it is clear that as Watergate unfolded from 1972 to 1974,

media revelations of crimes and political misdeeds repeated what investigative authorities

already knew. In short, carefully timed leaks, and media investigations, provided the first

news of Watergate to the American public (Feldstein). It was certain that everyone would

pick up the Post every morning to read the latest bombshell about Watergate, and thus

allow their accumulating distrust with in the government to fester and grow even
stronger. The single effect of Watergate on national media coverage of political scandals

was monumental. The relationship between the White House, the media and the public

eye was changed forever as a result of Watergate (Feldstein).

The U.S. House election of 1974 occurred in the wake of the Watergate Scandal

allowing the democrats to take 49 seats from the Republicans clearly illustrating a

displeased national constituency this election increased their majority over the two-thirds

mark. Proving Watergate and its widespread media publicity swayed the public and made

the party of the president unpopular (US Census Bureau).

William Jefferson Clinton

Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States served from 1993-2001.

During the preceding years of his presidency he was involved in numerous scandals

leading up to and through his term as President. During the 1980’s, the Clinton’s invested

in "Whitewater", a land development of riverfront property in Arkansas that eventually

fell through. The Jennifer Flowers affair was also exposed and Clinton vehemently

denied the allegations (Washington Post). These highly publicized controversies did not

seem to damper Clinton’s campaign or even his election, ultimately he was victorious.

However the results of his first congressional mid-term elections were disastrous. The

Democratic Party lost the majority for the first time in 40 years and the Republicans took

control of both houses for the first time since 1954 (Caesar). Thus reflecting on the

public’s demand for social reconstruction and discontentment with the Executive during a

mid-term election.
 Clinton’s second term is highlighted with the widely publicized scandal involving

White House Intern Monica Lewinsky. Monica Lewinsky allegedly began an affair with

President Clinton in 1995 while she was interning near the Oval Office. In January 1998

her story surfaced after she signed an affidavit in a separate lawsuit stating under oath

that she had relations with President Clinton. Later on in the investigation, tapes recorded

by Linda Tripp surfaced. Revealing Lewinsky detailing an affair with Clinton and

indicating that Clinton and his friend Vernon Jordan told Lewinsky to lie about the

alleged affair under oath (All Politics 1998).

In this case Lewinsky was granted immunity from prosecutor Kenneth Starr and

Clinton agreed to testify before the grand jury. Clinton after testifying in front of the

Grand Jury went on national television to admit the affair with Lewinsky and ask for

forgiveness. Prosecutor Kenneth Starr outlined four areas of impeachment, perjury,

obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of authority (in claiming executive

privilege and other actions). The House Judiciary Committee considered the report in

October and November. In mid-November the House Judiciary Committee sent Clinton

81 formal inquiries and his answers, were thought to have hurt his case. On December 12,

in party-line votes, the committee approved four impeachment counts. By December 20th

the vote was cast again along party line and Clinton became the second president to ever

be impeached. He was impeached on two charges, perjury in his 1998 testimony, and

obstruction of justice. Though the impeachment process was underway the removal from

office never passed (All Politics 1998).

On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, President Clinton agreed to admit

to giving false testimony in the Jones case and to accept a five-year suspension of his law
license and a $25,000 fine in return for an agreement by the independent counsel, to end

the investigation and not prosecute him (All Politics 1998).

Undoubtedly the public followed this scandal with a close watch. The public

dissatisfaction with the Clinton presidency was most evident in the presidential election

of 2000. Although there was no ultimate clear majority, it was close enough to note that

many who traditionally vote democratic voted republican, making it such an unclear

majority and thus turning over the Executive branch to the Republican Administration of

George W. Bush.

George W. Bush

The developing scandal under the current administration of George W. Bush

involves the US attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his aid Kyle Sampson’s firing of

various US attorneys for unexplainable reasons. These firings have been recently highly

publicized for their non-defendable reasoning of poor performance on the job. These

original reasons were soon withdrawn and replaced with repetitive, “I don’t know”, “I

cannot recall” and simply, “ I don’t remember”. All of which were included in Gonzales’

recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee (The New York Times).

Most of the fired prosecutors were involved in political trials or investigations of

high-ranking republicans. Carol Lam, who was fired, was involved in investigating one

of the Republican congressmen who were just investigated by the FBI. Serious questions

have arisen as to whether the fired prosecutors were responding to pressure from the

Republican Party to investigate certain types of voter fraud.

In Gonzales's testimony he included over 60 times that he could not remember an

answer to a question, even after he had about one month to prepare and review

documentation, it questions both his competency, his willingness to be honest, and the

essence of his testimony in front of Congress (The New York Times).

In recent weeks more and more electronic and paper trails have surfaced, yet

President Bush still adamantly backs the US Attorney General encouraging him that his

actions have not been illegal. They may have been immoral, but his actions have not been

proven to impede justice (The New York Times). Still, a decent amount of Republican

Senators has since asked for his resignation. In the months leading up to the presidential

election of 2008, there is no doubt the public will take this developing scandal to the

polls, and ultimately the Democratic Party will be victorious.

INTERNATIONAL STAGE

Introduction

The president who had experienced these scandals did not always directly feel the

consequences of them. The aftermath of many of these blunders left the successor office

holders with a weak hand in the domestic sector. The public was not anxious to trust

simply just another republican, or democrat successor. The time periods after public

scandals are the most uncomfortable times for a new president. These are the times when

we have seen the Executive take strong actions abroad in U.S. foreign relations.

With a hold on domestic power stretched thin and facing 21st century threats of

pandemics and terrorism, America has reached a point where it absolutely must deploy its

power abroad more effectively. The United States continuously attempts to have a greater

impact abroad where it counts. Presidential power in foreign affairs has evolved into a
key aspect of forming international political relationships. According to Barbara

Hinckley, Congress more often than not votes with the President. Despite occasional

flurries of activity on carefully chosen symbolic issues, most foreign policy issues never

even make the Congressional agenda, foreign policy is clearly left to the Executive

(Hinckley 67).

Foreign aid first became an important tool of American national security policy

under the Truman administration. The first great foreign aid program, the Marshall Plan,

was aimed at rebuilding Western Europe after World War II, in part as a bulwark against

Soviet expansion. President Kennedy vastly expanded U.S. foreign assistance by

establishing the Peace Corps, USAID, and the Alliance for Progress, all designed in part

to stop the spread of communism. In the late 1960s, Vietnam became the largest recipient

of U.S. foreign aid, receiving grants and subsidized loans aimed at economic

development and humanitarian assistance this excluded military aid. By the early 1980s,

the Reagan administration had started funneling the same kind of money into El

Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Zaire all of whom were

fighting leftist threats (Hinckley 102). In the late 1970s, the Executive began using aid to

support another important foreign policy goal: Middle East peace. As part of the Camp

David accords, support was significantly increased to Israel and Egypt. Today, these two

countries remain the largest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance, and Israel an avid ally

(Radlet).

Despite these compelling policy interests, throughout the years foreign assistance

never enjoyed strong support from Congress (Radlet). In four administrations over time
unilateral action and strength in foreign affairs has allowed Presidents to succeed in

abroad the face of domestic adversity.

George H.W. Bush

On May 7, 1989 in Panamanian Dictator Manuel Noriega nullified the results of

an election that would have forced him from office, and even used his personal police

force to publicly beat Guillermo Endara, the successful vice-presidential candidate. Bush

quickly ordered additional troops into the Canal Zone and ordered Admiral William

Crowe, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to construct a plan to oust Noriega (Feldman 2).

On December 20, Guillermo Endara was sworn in as president and American

paratroopers landed in Panama City. In about eight hours, military action was over and

all key facilities were in US hands. Noriega however initially attempted to escape but

was then captured by American troops that surrounded the embassy in which he was

hiding.

In the fall of 1980, about a year after the overthrow of the shah, Saddam Hussein

invaded Iran. The war lasted eight years and devastated the economies of both nations.

Not only did Iraq have an immense foreign debt of $80 billion, the price of oil, which

made up 95% of Iraq’s exports, was falling rapidly. To aid his shaky economy, Saddam

began seeking foreign aid. The US seemed the most receptive. After Saddam threatened

Israel, the Bush administration made the decision to discontinue aid. The president of

Iraq, desperate for money to rebuild his economy, decided to invade Kuwait. On August

2, 1990, about 140,000 Iraqi troops and 18,000 tanks moved into Kuwait. In less than a

day, Kuwait City had fallen to Iraqi forces, and Saddam not only controlled Iraq, but also
over 20% of the world’s oil supply. Bush immediately took action when he learned of the

Iraqi invasion. He ordered the freezing of over $100 billion of Iraqi assets.

By August 6, the UN passed Resolution 660 unanimously (Feldman 3). The

resolution condemned the invasion of Iraq and called for immediate withdrawal from

Kuwait under the threat of trade sanctions. This resolution was extremely significant, it

signaled the fact that President Bush had managed to gain the support of Gorbachev.

Although the Soviet president faced internal opposition, Gorbachev could not afford to

alienate the US, the Soviet economy was crumbling and US aid was vital. Bush’s first

objective was the protection of Saudi Arabia. Military intelligence suggested that

Saddam’s next move would be into Saudi Arabia. By the end of August, over 80,000

coalition troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia to “defend themselves, the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia, and other friends in the Persian Gulf.” The operation was code named

Desert Shield (Feldman 3).

After one more failed attempt to negotiate an Iraqi withdrawal, in which Iraq’s

foreign minister declared “We accept war,” Congress voted on January 12 to declare war

on Iraq. After just 100 hours of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and General Norman

Schwarzkopf meant with Iraqi military leadership and laid out the terms of the cease-

fire. The US lost 148 soldiers versus the some 22,000 estimated Iraqi losses (Feldman 4).

Operation Desert Storm was enacted, effective and successful. President Bush’s

outstretched arm in US foreign Affairs regained him domestic respect and a step up on

the international stage.

William Jefferson Clinton

 Bill Clinton’s second term was filled with allegations of “wag the dog politics”, a

concept that depicts deflecting one scandal after another with news abroad. However as

coincidental as his actions might have been, all of President Clinton’s actions were fully

justified. These interventions abroad signaled an attempt to regain Presidential political

control abroad since domestics power was at an all time low. In 1998 Bill Clinton

launched a missile attack on several facilities in an attempt to halt terrorist Osama Bin

Laden. Though this attack was necessary, Clinton seems to have executed it for political

reasons. Clinton then acted when he felt it was militarily appropriate, the day following a

settlement with Paula Jones, Clinton made an attempted strike on Iraq. That bombing,

known as Operation Desert Fox, was aimed at retarding Saddam's missile and weapons

programs. Purposefully, Clinton acted at an excellent time for press coverage detailing

his efforts in International affairs. One day before he was to be impeached, Clinton called

another surprise air attack on Iraq (Walt 2). The stated reason was Saddaam Hussein’s

refusal to allow UN weapons inspections, which were in no doubt, very justifiable.

Hussein's actions have long warranted a military strike, and this time was the best

opportunity to react militarily and regain a positive presidential reputation on the

International stage. Although much of his public respect was depleted domestically he

was still able to enact powerful engagements abroad successfully (Walt 3).

Later on, in his first term there were plenty of conflicts that he was able to

successfully extinguish. Under threat of an imminent invasion, Haiti's military junta

agreed to relinquish power in favor of the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand

Aristide. American troops entered Haiti to keep the peace (Walt 4). Another major

conflict with North Korea was eased with an agreement offering North Korea assistance
with its civilian nuclear program, in return for the relinquishment of plutonium-producing

nuclear reactors. On a separate occasion Clinton used currency funds controlled by the

president to grant to Mexico a $40 billion loan guarantee, thus detailing a significant

display of unilateral action. One of his more controversial decisions was to grant U.S.

recognition to Vietnam. In 1994 Clinton deployed troops to Kuwait when Iraq, protesting

UN sanctions and the enforcement of a no-fly zone, appeared to threaten its neighbor

again. Two years later, he ordered air strikes against Iraq for violating the terms of peace

agreed to at the end of the Persian Gulf War (Walt 4-5).

President Clinton’s second term was much more successful in international

affairs. His attempts to support European unity, dealing with the virtual collapse of the

Asian regional economy, nurturing peace efforts in the former Yugoslavia, Northern

Ireland, Israel, and the Korean peninsula were all at the top of his agenda. He also wanted

to encourage Chinese cooperation in world affairs and ensure Iraqi compliance with

international agreements. Clinton and his foreign policy team, led by Secretary of State

Madeleine Albright, achieved considerable successes in many of these sectors including

specifically, Northern Ireland and Israel (Walt 6). The Clinton administration also

supplied the bulk of the aircraft and weaponry for NATO's 1999 military campaign

against Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic’s troops in the predominantly Albanian

province of Kosovo in Serbia (Walt 6).

Evidently Clinton’s terms were filled with relentless controversies, however he

took that time to allow his focus and power to fall upon the international stage. After all

he was the first Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt to be elected to the office

twice (Caesar).
George W. Bush

In the wake of the 2001 terror attacks president Bush asked for an Authorization

to Use Military Force from Congress, and he was almost immediately granted what we

know more popularly to be AUMF (Kriner). This allowed the Executive to act militarily,

unilaterally to how he saw fit. Militarily on the international stage, we have seen

President Bush’s hand in Afghanistan, and Iraq. Four years later no peacefully accord has

been reached. One may find it difficult to come to the conclusion that President Bush’s

efforts abroad have been successful, yet it is clear to see that his efforts are relentless and

contain extreme force.

However, on the International stage non-militarily in March 2002, Bush proposed

the Millennium Challenge Account, a fund that would provide $5 billion per year to a

select group of countries that are "ruling justly, investing in their people, and establishing

economic freedom." In September 2002 Bush released his National Security Strategy,

which gave rare prominence to development and aid alongside defense and diplomacy. In

his 2003 State of the Union address he called for $10 billion in new funding ($15 billion

total) over the next five years, to combat HIV/aids in Africa and the Caribbean (Radlet).

This proposal was rapidly signed into law in late May, preceding the G-8 summit. Further

positively influencing foreign affairs, Bush’s 2004 budget included two smaller

initiatives, a $200 million famine fund and a $100 million fund for "complex

emergencies." (Radlet). If these programs are funded as proposed, they will increase U.S.

foreign aid from approximately $11 billion in 2002 to $18 billion in 2006 thus

encapsulating the largest increase in decades (Tarnoff). Perhaps more important, they will
also fundamentally change the way the United States delivers aid by making recipients

more involved in setting priorities and by demanding greater accountability for results

(Nowels). President Bush has not only demonstrated a remarkably successful attempt at

delving into matters of US foreign affairs, he has become an influential actor on the

international political stage, despite the past and current domestic scandals that have

plagued the administrations of the past with media suffocation.

CONCLUSION

Over time the American public has become more and more polarized, inherently

as a result of the dissatisfaction with government. Scandals and domestic presidential

mishaps have ultimately led the American public to its current state of somber sentiment,

feeling disenfranchised from the American Government, losing faith and trust within the

office of the Executive. Surrounded with media frenzies of every mistake the president

makes, even if one does not want to care, its hard to avoid the radio, internet, magazines

and cable television to name a few, are unavoidable in an American’s daily life. The way

media present presidential domestic politics has taken shockingly destructive blows over

the past decades. Leaving most of the public dissatisfied and disenchanted toward politics

in general. The four cases of presidential scandals outline the ways in which the public

can easily lose faith with in the Executive with the help of media outputs. The four cases

of presidential use of power on the international stage displays how the executive can

successfully continue to use power internationally even in the wake of a publicly

displayed scandal.
 Administration after administration faces daily relentless opposition,

insurmountable public outcry, and ongoing probes into the party of the president, the

distrust and doubt of the public has only multiplied. Aaron Wildavsky’s two presidencies

thesis is evidently true, however over time the domestic presidency has been weakened.

The media circus that has emerged over the past 40 years had ultimately led to the

downfall of the domestic president, and thus forcing the Office of the President of the

United States to redeem his power in the realm of US Foreign Affairs. Regaining respect

and power over time, on the international stage.

Michelle Ross
PO 510
Annotated Bibliography
Professor Kriner

All Politics, CNN. Clinton Scandal Chronology. TIMES CQ. 1998.

<http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/> 2007.
Bates, J. Leonard, The Origins of Teapot Dome: Progressives, Parties, and Petroleum,
1909–1921 (1963; reprint, Greenwood Press 1978). Encyclopedia Americana.
2007.

BBC. Report on President Nixon’s Watergate Scandal. British Broadcasting News. Apr.
1974. Access May 2007. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/>

Caesar, James W. American Government: Origins, Institutions and Public Policy.

McGraw Hill. 1984.

Dayan, Daniel & Katz, Elihu. Media Events: the live broadcasting of history,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1992.

Feldman, Leslie D. Honor and Loyalty: Inside the Politics of the George H. W. Bush
White House. Greenwood Press. 2002. Encyclopedia Americana. May 2007.
<http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0068080-00>

Feldstein, Mark. Watergate Revisited. American Journal Review. Sept 2004. ajr.org.
2007.

Hinckley, Barbara. Less Than Meets the Eye. University of Chicago Press. 1994.

Howell, William. Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential

Actions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2003.

Hart, Roderick. Presidential Affairs. Presidential Studies Quaterly. 1998.

Johnson, Paul. Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000.
CQ Press. 2002.

Kriner. Douglas. Taming the Imperial Presidency: Presidents, Congress and the Use of
Force. Harvard University. 2005.

Moe, Terry M. and Howell, William G., "The Presidential Power of Unilateral Action"
Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Vol. 15, No. 1, Spring
1999.

Nelson, M. Constitutional powers of the president. (2003). The Presidency.Washington:

CQ Press. August 19, 2005, from CQ Electronic Library of American
Government. 2007.

Neustadt, Richard. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of
Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. Free Press. 1991.
Nowels, Larry. CRS Report for Congress CRS Web. Restructuring U.S. Foreign Aid:
The Role of the Director of Foreign Assistance. 2006.

Radlet, Steven. Bush and Foreign Aid. White House Calls for Foreign Aid. Foreign
Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations. 2003

Rodman, Peter W. U.S. Foreign Policy Under a Weakened Presidency. vol. 5, #7(c). The
Nixon Center 1999.

Sigelman, Lee.A Reassessment of the Two Presidencies Thesis

The Journal of Politics, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Nov., 1979), pp. 1195-1205.

Tarnoff, Curt. CRS Report for Congress CRS Web Foreign Aid. An Introductory
Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy. April 15, 2004.

The New York Times. A scandal that Keeps Growing. Alberto Gonzales. New York
Times. May 2007.

U.S. Census Bureau. Historical Voting Tables of Congressional Elections. November

2000. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/vote-
htabtcon.html 2007.

Walt, Stephen M. Two Cheers for Clinton’s Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs, Council on
Foreign Relations. March 2000.

Washington Post. Whitewater Timeline. The Washington Post Company. 1998.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm>2007.

Wildavsky, Aaron. Perspectives on Presidency, "The Two Presidencies". Boston: Little

Brown. 1975

Widestedt, Kristina. The Mediated Visibility of Political Scandal. Dresden Summit. 2006.