How does the recent scholarship of Howell and his colleagues contribute to our understanding of how wars augment presidential power?

What will be an ideal response?

The ideal answer should include:
a. Note that the scholarship seeks to study the systemic effects of war on the president's ability to advance a policy agenda at home and challenges some of the conclusions drawn from the works of Edward Corwin, Clinton Rossiter, and Arthur Schlesinger.
b. Describe how the study used appropriations and congressional voting patterns as empirical measures for congressional support of a president's domestic agenda during periods of war.
c. Explain some of the methodological challenges faced by the researchers, including an inability to replicate the technique applied to study the 107th Congress in other periods of history and an inability to create an ideal research environment, having identical members of Congress voting on identical bills immediately before and after the onset of war, while keeping all other factors constant.
d. Analyze their results, noting that their findings indicated that during times of war, Congress was much more receptive to the appropriations requests of the president than during periods of peace;that there was a limited affect on voting patterns of congressional members toward supporting a president's agenda but that some wars have increased presidential success rates much more than others;that support for a president materialized quickly during a war and ended once peace was restored; and that wars enhance presidential power only when presidents nationalize debates about public policy.