In the assigned reading by Richard Neustadt, he argues the following about the presidency:
“‘Powers’ are no guarantee of power; clerkship no guarantee of leadership. The presidency of the United States has an extraordinary range of formal powers, of authority in statute law and in the Constitution…[but] despite his ‘powers’ he does not obtain results by giving orders–or not at any rate by merely giving orders…despite his status he does not get action without argument. Presidential power is the power to persuade.” — Neustadt, “from Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents,” p. 212
Is Neustadt right in his understanding of presidential power, even in the modern era? Or does he underestimate presidential power? Here you might consider William Howell’s discussion of possible “power without persuasion” and/or some of the examples from the other assigned readings.
Write an essay exploring Neustadt’s argument that presidential power is fundamentally about persuasion due to the limits of his (or her) formal powers. You can agree with Neustadt and draw on the readings from this week to support your analysis. Or you are welcome to challenge Neustadt’s claim based on insights from any of the other readings. (Please use Neustadt and at least one other reading from this week.)
Even if you disagree with Neustadt, you should still take his perspective seriously as part of your answer.
Format requirements
Your commentary should be typed, double-spaced, 12 point font, 1″ margins. 2-3 pages is the suggested length, but a bit longer is fine (use your own judgment). Please cite pages from the reading using parenthetical citations (bracketed page information at the end of the sentence). Citations should be used to support paraphrased information/ideas taken from the readings, not just for direct quotes.
Please use the resources I provided as much as possible I need the best possible grade with only a 2 page essay