Download Free Presidential Machismo Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Presidential Machismo and write the review.

A look at the expansion of executive authority in America and the influence of scholars, journalists and presidents themselves.
This book analyzes the way media describe presidential candidates' character and the degree to which this discourse maintains a preference for masculinity in our politics, using content analysis of major print new media outlets.
Orman's Comparing Presidential Power is an important and insightful study of the American Presidency. The macho model of presidential leadership is developed well and supported by both primary and secondary research. In fact, a brief overview of the book cannot do justice to the detailed analysis and support provided in the work. The text is well documented and every assumption is illustrated by several specific examples. The humanistic study is written from an audience perspective providing a socio-psychological orientation of how the public interprets the office. Thus, the lasting value of the book is not so much in the comparison of the Carter and Reagan presidencies or the defense of the Carter administration but in the provision of a complete model or theory of the contemporary institutional presidency. The book is a valuable contribution to the literature and thus a must for scholars and students of the American presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly The president of the United States may be considered the quintessential symbol of the country, and, as such, a reflection of society's dominent values. His actions and decisions are influenced by a number of factors, including the prevailing environment, bureaucratic policies, and the incumbent's personality. Over and above the abilities and opportunities of the person who holds the office, John Orman argues that success of a president's policy endeavors is ultimately dependent in luck and good timing. His hypothesis is that a president's success depends on the ability to align actions with a society that places a premium on machismo. Using this theory, he analyzes the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
Why has the U.S. never had a woman president? With Hillary Clinton engaged in a historic campaign that could see her becoming the first woman elected president of the United States, the national conversation about gender and the presidency is gaining critical momentum. Commentators have fixated on the special challenges women candidates for the presidency face: endless media scrutiny abGender has always been a crucial factor in presidential politics. In Man Enough? Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Politics of Presidential Masculinity, Jackson Katz puts forth the original and highly provocative thesis that in recent decades presidential campaigns have become the center stage of an ongoing national debate about manhood, a kind of quadrennial referendum on what type of man—or one day, woman—embodies not only our ideological beliefs, but our very identity as a nation. Whether he is examining right-wing talk radio’s relentless attacks on the masculinity of Democratic candidates, how fears of appearing weak and vulnerable end up shaping candidates’ actual policy positions, how the ISIS attacks on Paris and elsewhere have pushed candidates to assume an increasingly hypermasculine posture, or the groundbreaking quality of Hillary Clinton’s runs for the presidency in 2008 and 2016, Katz offers a new way to understand the role of identity politics in presidential campaigns. In the end, Man Enough? offers nothing less than a paradigm-shifting way to understand the very nature of the American presidency.
Why Americans always elect men as presidents? It’s no secret that there is a wide—and growing—gender gap in American presidential politics. Over the past thirty years, Democrats have made major gains with women, while Republicans have been doing far better with men —especially white working class men. The question is why? In Leading Men, Jackson Katz argues that racial politics and economic anxieties are not enough to explain the dramatic gender divide in American voting patterns. Cutting against the grain of typical analyses of the gender gap that have focused almost exclusively on women, Katz trains his focus the other way around: on the male side of the equation. He offers stunning evidence that American presidential campaigns have evolved into nothing less than quadrennial referenda on competing versions of American manhood. And in the process, he never takes his eye off what this development means for women—as both candidates and citizens. Written in an engaging style that will appeal to general readers, political experts, and activists alike, Katz explores some of the major political developments, news events and campaign strategies that have made the presidency the center of a cultural conversation about manhood over the past few decades. Ranging from the election of the former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan in 1980, through the election of Barack Obama in 2008, and into the 2012 campaign season, Katz zeroes in on how the very notion of what it means to be “presidential” has in many ways become synonymous with traditional definitions of manhood. Whether he is examining right-wing talk radio’s relentless attacks on the masculinity of Democratic candidates, or how fears of appearing weak and vulnerable end up shaping candidates’ actual policy positions, Katz offers a new way to understand the power of image in presidential politics. In the end, Leading Men offers nothing less than a paradigm-shifting way to understand the dynamics of presidential elections, and the very nature of the American presidency.
Gender, Heteronormativity and the American Presidency places notions of gender at the center of its analysis of presidential campaign communications. Over the decades, an investment in gendered representations of would-be leaders has changed little, in spite of the second- and third-wave feminist movements. Modern candidates have worked vigorously to demonstrate "compensatory heterosexuality," an unquestionable normative identity that seeks to overcome challenges to their masculinity or femininity. The book draws from a wide range of archived media material, including televised films and advertisements, public debates and speeches, and candidate autobiographies. From the domestic ideals promoted by Eisenhower in the 1950s, right through to the explicit and divisive rhetoric associated with the Clinton/Trump race in 2016; intersectional content and discourse analysis reveals how each presidential candidate used his or her campaign to position themselves as a defender of traditional gender roles, and furthermore, how this investment in "appropriate" gender behaviour was made manifest in both international and domestic policy choices. This book represents a significant and timely contribution to the study of political communication. While communication during presidential elections is a well-established research field, Aidan Smith’s book is the first to apply a gendered lens over such an extended historical period and across the political spectrum.
This book looks at representations of the male body, sexuality and power in the arts in Mexico. It analyses literature, visual art and cinema produced from the 1870s to the present, focusing on the Porfirian regime, the Post-revolutionary era, the decadence of the revolutionary state and the emergence of the neo-liberal order in the 1980s.
A look at how Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and American voters invoked ideas of gender and race in the fiercely contested 2016 US presidential election
In many elections, candidates frame their appeals in gendered ways--they compete, for instance, over who is more "masculine." This is the case for male and female candidates alike. In the 2016 presidential election, however, the stark choice between the first major-party female candidate and a man who exhibited a persistent pattern of misogyny made the use of gender more prominent than in any previous election in the United States. Presidential campaigns often have an impact on downballot Congressional races, but the 2016 election provided a new opportunity to see the effects of misogyny. While much has been written about the 2016 election--and the shadow of 2016 clearly affected the pool of candidates in the 2018 midterms--this book looks at how the Trump and Clinton campaigns actually changed the behavior of more conventional candidates for Congress in 2016 and 2018. Over the past decade, those who study political parties have sought to understand changes in the relationship between groups and parties and how these changes have affected the ability of parties to develop coherent campaign strategies. The clear need for rapid adjustments in party strategy in the 2016 election provides an ideal means of testing whether today's political parties are more able or less able to respond to unexpected events. This book argues that Donald Trump's candidacy radically altered the nature of the 2016 congressional campaigns in two ways. First, it changed the issues of contention in many of these races. Trump's provocative calls for building a wall along the Mexican border and temporarily prohibiting immigration from Muslim countries inserted issues of race and ethnicity into elections and forced candidates to respond to his proposals. Most consequentially, however, Trump's attacks on women--including television personalities, politicians, and, at times, private citizens--alienated numerous potential supporters and placed many of his supporters (and downballot Republican candidates in particular) on the defensive. Second, expectations that Trump would lose the election influenced how candidates for lower office campaigned and how willing they were to connect their fortunes to those of their party's nominee. The fact that Trump was expected to lose--and was expected to lose in large part because of his misogyny--caused both major parties to direct more of their resources toward congressional races, and led many Republican candidates, especially women, to distance themselves from Trump. This book explores how the Trump and Clinton campaigns used gender as a political weapon, and how the presidential race changed the ways in which House and Senate campaigns were waged in 2016 and 2018.
This book details the relationship between culture and the language used by public figures, including politicians, political candidates, and government officials, in the broad context of political behavior and communication. Employing a variety of perspectives, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and analytical approaches, chapters focus specifically on the question of HOW cultural factors (such as religion, history, economy, majority/minority relations, social structure, and values) shape the content, nature, and characteristics of the rhetoric that public figures utilize in selected countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East. The chapters enable comparison of the cultural effects on the different structures, styles, and contents of public speaking in societies from West to East. That is, of WHAT leaders say, HOW they say it (e.g., degree of openness, directness, usage of metaphors and slogans, xenophobic and racial expressions), under WHICH specific circumstances (e.g., National Days addresses, national or local assemblies’ debates, during election campaigns appeals, press conferences’ briefings, and in international meetings’ speeches), and for WHAT specific audiences (e.g., supporters and voters, media representatives, or the global community).