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).
Based on the information provided, it seems like you are comparing the academic backgrounds and approaches to studying the presidency of two individuals: Richard Neustadt and Edward Corwin.
Richard Neustadt, a political scientist, argues that presidential power is influence and emphasizes a behavioralist perspective. Neustadt's views align more with Democratic views of the role of government. He implements a "statecraft" approach to presidential leadership, which is similar to Machiavellian politics.
On the other hand, Edward Corwin, a presidency scholar, believes that legal authority is what secures presidential power. Corwin disregards any enhancement to the president's role or power and instead focuses on the constitutional framework. He takes a constitutionalist approach, viewing the Constitution as a source of presidential power and providing guidance within the framework of constitutional separations of powers.
To compare their differing academic backgrounds and approaches to studying the presidency, you could further explore their research, writings, theories, and methodologies. Consider examining their works, such as Neustadt's book "Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership From Roosevelt to Reagan" and Corwin's writings on constitutional law and presidential power. Analyze how they approach the study of the presidency, their theoretical frameworks, and the evidence they provide to support their arguments.
Overall, by delving deeper into their academic backgrounds and approaches, you can gain a comprehensive understanding of the differences between Neustadt and Corwin's perspectives on the presidency.