Neustadt argued that presidential power lies not in the office's legal authority, but rather in the personal and strategic skill of individual presidents (2). In a system of "separate institutions sharing power," presidents get what they want not through command or legal authority, but through the ability to persuade others that what the president wants is what is in their own interest. Neustadt behavioralist approach, which is more consistent with Democratic views of the role of government, emphasizes on predicting and explaining actual behavior than on motionless analysis of institutional or procedural context (122).
Edward Corwin, on the other hand, sought to understand presidential power as conceived by the Framers, defined in the Constitution, and interpreted through case law (132). The ambiguities in the original constitutional made the boundaries of presidential power fluid and raised the possibility that the presidency was a "potential matrix of dictatorship” but throughout Corwin was concerned with the relationship between presidential power and the legal grants of authority.
2 Neustadt looked not to the Constitution or statutes to understand presidential behavior, but to the foundation of informal presidential power: public prestige and attempts to lead public opinion, professional reputation and style, congressional relations and legislative strategies, decision-making styles, and bargaining skills (119). According to Neustadt a president derives from his reputation and prestige in Washington, and the country (pg 119). Because the constitutional authority does not guarantee other political actors cooperation to achieve the president’s goals, Neustadt suggests that the president is then required to “influence” those around him with persuasion and bargaining to achieve his goal (119-120). The president cannot simply command and receive. In fact, Neustadt argued that when a president gets his way by force, it is normally a "painful last resort, a forced response to the exhaustion of other remedies, suggestive less of mastery than of failure--the failure of attempts to gain an end by softer means” (120). An executive order or other legal device, as an instrument of formal authority, does not by itself cause action. With the separation of powers, Nesutadt contains that, other levels of government have different constituencies and different interest. The president must then bargain and persuade others that what he wants is in their best interest (120).
Here are some suggestions and corrections:
<<...that what the president wants is (what) is in their own interest.>> (The second "what is unnecessary)
<<Neustadt's behaviorist approach..>
(add appostrophe-s and correct spelling)
<<Democratic views of the role of government emphasize predicting and explaining actual behavior, rather than..>>
(several changes there)
<<sought to understand presidential power as conceived by the Framers of the Constitution, >>
<<The ambiguities in the original Constitution >>
(change adjective consititional to the noun Constitution)
<< .."potential matrix of dictatorship”, but Corwin was concerned with the relationship between presidential power and the legal grants of authority.>>
comma before "but", and get rid of the awkward "throughout" or separate it as a phrase in commas as in ",throughout it all,"
Neustadt's argument about presidential power is that it does not solely depend on the legal authority of the office, but rather on the personal and strategic skill of individual presidents. He believed that in a system where power is shared among separate institutions, presidents can achieve their goals not through command or legal authority, but by persuading others that their interests align with the president's objectives.
To understand presidential behavior, Neustadt looked beyond the Constitution or statutes and instead focused on informal sources of power. He identified factors such as public prestige, leadership and opinion-shaping abilities, professional reputation and style, relationships with Congress, legislative strategies, decision-making styles, and bargaining skills as crucial for a president's influence.
According to Neustadt, a president's reputation and prestige in Washington and the country play a significant role in their ability to achieve their goals. Since constitutional authority does not guarantee cooperation from other political actors, Neustadt argued that presidents must rely on persuasion and bargaining to gain support. He emphasized that a president cannot simply command and expect compliance. In fact, he suggested that using force as a last resort indicates a failure to achieve one's objectives through softer means.
Neustadt also acknowledged the separation of powers and the fact that different levels of government have different constituencies and interests. Therefore, the president must engage in bargaining and persuade others that their own interests align with what the president wants to achieve.
In summary, Neustadt's behavioralist approach to understanding presidential power highlights the importance of personal skills, persuasion, and bargaining in achieving presidential goals, rather than relying solely on legal authority or formal instruments of power.