posted by christi on .
objective is to cmpare their "differing academic backgrounds and approaches to studying the presidency" Do I need to add enything else?
Maximizing the notion of a modern presidency, dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, political scientist Richard Neustadt argued that presidential power is influence (2). His concepts derive from that of a behavioralist perspective that is more consistent with Democratic views of the role of government (119). Neaustadt implements “statecraft” approach to presidential leadership, which resembles that of Machiavellian politics (119). Presidency scholar, Edward Corwin, however, argued that legal authority secured presidential power, therefore, disregarded any enhancement to the presidents’ role or its power (132). Corwin demonstrates a constitutionalist approach; he finds the constitution as a continuing source for presidential power and presidential office, a legal guidance for presidents within the framework of constitutional separations of powers (137).