| Details | | Publication Date: | 1999-12-09 |
| Size | | Length: | 391 pages | | Height: | 9.8 in | | Width: | 6.5 in | | Thickness: | 1.5 in | | Weight: | 27.2 oz |
Publisher's Note
The U.S. Presidency is the most powerful office in the world, claiming a prerogative to exercise force in foreign affairs that, according to Harry S. Truman, would have made Caesar or Genghis Khan envious. This book offers a historical account of how presidents from George Washington to Bill Clinton have asserted their privilege as commander in chief, examining their penchant for using military might unilaterally and their reasons for doing so. It asks why a democracy allows presidents to exercise such immense power virtually as a personal right. Taking in a wide range of sources in diplomatic history and presidential studies, Alexander DeConde shows how the expansion of executive authority began long before the United States became a world power. He explains how it has evolved that U.S. presidents exercise a greater authority and control over foreign affairs and military matters than is granted to most other heads of republican governments. DeConde attributes much of this pugnacious behavior to "machismo" -- the display of virility -- on the part of men already attracted to power, concluding that even weak presidents act differently when flexing their military muscle. He reveals how presidential machismo has thrived as modern media and the American people celebrate executive accomplishments in foreign affairs, elevating those who wage successful wars to the status of heroes. Presidential Machismo approaches this issue with an overdue irreverence that questions the bold use of executive authority and serves as a corrective to the cult of veneration fostered by scholars, journalists, and presidents themselves.
This book offers a historical account of how presidents from George Washington to Bill Clinton have asserted their privilege as Commander in chief, examining their penchant for using military might unilaterally and their reasons for doing so. It asks why a democracy allows presidents to exercise such immense power virtually as a personal right.
| See an error? Submit a change request |
All rights reserved.
