A look at the expansion of executive authority in America and the influence of scholars, journalists and presidents themselves.

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.

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.

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).

Is Vladimir Putin macho, or is he a "fag"? Sex, Politics, and Putin investigates how gender stereotypes and sexualization have been used as tools of political legitimation in contemporary Russia. Despite their enmity, regime allies and detractors alike have wielded traditional concepts of masculinity, femininity, and homophobia as a means of symbolic endorsement or disparagement of political leaders and policies. By repeatedly using machismo as a means of legitimation, Putin's regime (unlike that of Gorbachev or Yeltsin) opened the door to the concerted use of gendered rhetoric and imagery as a means to challenge regime authority. Sex, Politics, and Putin analyzes the political uses of gender norms and sexualization in Russia through three case studies: pro- and anti-regime groups' activism aimed at supporting or undermining the political leaders on their respective sides; activism regarding military conscription and patriotism; and feminist activism. Arguing that gender norms are most easily invoked as tools of authority-building when there exists widespread popular acceptance of misogyny and homophobia, Sperling also examines the ways in which sexism and homophobia are reflected in Russia's public sphere.

Political scandals have always demonstrated the capacity of our executive officials for self-inflicted injuries, and the Clinton administration was no exception. Unilateral warmaking, claims of executive privilege and immunity, and last-minute pardons all tested the limits of presidential power, while the excesses of the Special Prosecutor cast doubts on available remedies. For eight years, Republicans and Democrats engaged in guerrilla warfare aimed at destroying the careers and lives of their adversaries while tests of presidential power were resolved by the courts, resulting in a reshaping of the scope and power of the presidency itself. This book examines the many controversial and important battles that led to the shrinking of the presidency under the law during the Clinton administration. Located at the intersection of law and politics, it helps readers understand the dramatic changes that took place in the relationship of presidential power to the law during the Clinton years and shows how one president's actions—and congressional and legal reactions to them—have altered presidential prerogatives in ways that his successors cannot ignore. The Presidency and the Law offers an assessment of changes in constitutional and legal understanding of the American presidency, exploring such topics as war power, executive privilege, pardon power, impeachment, executive immunity, independent counsel, and campaign finance. In examining these collisions between president and the law, its distinguished contributors bring the lessons of Watergate and Iran-Contra into the Clinton era and contribute to a Madisonian view that presidents should not operate outside statutory and constitutional constraints. While the essays offer several criticisms of that administration's exercise of power and its interpretation of constitutional provisions and law, many of the authors have been supportive of Clinton and his policy pursuits, and all seek to examine the potential impact of the Clinton administration without being predictive or legalistic. They offer instead commentary, analysis, and criticism that examine the legality and constitutionality of President Clinton's actions within a broader political and historical context. The presidency is constitutionally weaker and politically more vulnerable than the office Bill Clinton assumed in 1993, and it remains to be seen what impact these changes will have on the presidency in the 21st century. This book points the way to assessing that impact, and is essential reading for anyone concerned with the future of our democracy.