While women constitute a majority of the U.S. population, they still make up only a minority of political officeholders. Some of the literature in political ambition argues that one of the reasons for the dearth of women in elective office is that women are less socialized than men to want to run for political office. The same literature suggests that such disparity can be traced back to high school. This exploratory paper examines the possibility that the disparity may be due, at least in part, to the different ways in which men and women are represented in civics textbooks. Specifically, because some works already suggest that women are less represented than men in civics textbooks, this work examines whether there are any differences between the way that regular and AP civics textbooks represent men and women. This was done using content analysis on AP and regular textbooks from three schools each from different districts in the state of Arizona. The findings from the content analyses were consistent with the first three hypotheses: that (1) the AP civics textbooks have a higher percentage of women than do the regular civics textbooks, (2) the AP civics textbooks devote a higher percentage of pages to women’s names than do the regular civic textbooks, and that (3) that both the AP and regular civics textbooks discuss women and men with a neutral tone. However, findings were not consistent with the fourth hypothesis, (4) that there will be more female role models among the top mentioned women in AP textbooks than there will be role models among the top mentioned women in regular textbooks. The manifest content analysis revealed that the percent of women mentioned in the AP textbooks sampled was 2.8 to 3 times higher than that of regular textbooks. That ratio increased to 4 to 4.5 times when the percent of pages mentioning women were taken into account. The latent content analysis, which assessed the tone of each sentence, revealed that men and women were generally treated neutrally when compared with one another in all of the textbooks studied—thus strengthening the substantive significance of the aforementioned ratios. Further analyses conducted for Hypothesis 4, however, revealed that in the regular and AP textbooks studied, female role models were mentioned both less often and less strongly than were male role models.

This thesis determines how first ladies portray their role through their speeches and whether this role meets partisan voters' expectations. Research includes an examination of first ladies' biographical information, content analysis of various speeches, and analysis of public polls to determine Republicans' and Democrats' role expectations and the role that first ladies portray. Analysis shows that first ladies meet some of their partisan voters' expectations and that party identification greatly influences the role they enact.

This thesis seeks to answer as to how leaders implement grand strategy. The framework for this endeavor comes from Peter Trubowitz's Politics and Strategy: Partisan Ambition and American Statecraft. In this work Trubowitz makes many claims about the nature of grand strategy, but the relevant ones to this research are that grand strategy is driven solely by structural constraints (domestic and foreign) individual characteristics of leaders do not affect exercises of political power and that President Nixon pursued an internal balancing grand strategy, which means that he pursued a containment policy. This thesis tests those claims via operational code analysis and the Verbs in Context System to map President Nixon's general grand strategy and his strategy regarding conflict in Southeast Asia, as well as dealing with the Communist Bloc. The findings are that Nixon does pursue a general grand strategy of internal balancing, but that the targeted instances of Southeast Asia and the Communist Bloc, he acts against constraints and shifts strategy. This is evidence that individual leaders do shape the exercise of political power by the state.

Since the start of U.S. hostilities against Iraq in 2003, International Relations scholars have begun to characterize the U.S. as potentially an empire. This is because the traditional notion of sovereignty under the Westphalian nation-state system is held as a constant in the prominent theories that govern how it is thought how nation-states interact with each other. The blatant violation of international laws and norms with impunity by the U.S. have led to a re-questioning of the true dynamics underlying this system. Some scholars have characterized the recent research as a popular fad, but most of the research is aimed at just attempting to show how the U.S. could be an empire. What the current research is missing is how the U.S. became an empire, with that analysis anchored in an historical comparison. A complete chronological review of each system in its entirety is required, with all of its components, to more fully understand these phenomena. This has required researchers to devise a new methodological process of qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing macro structures. We believe the implications of the insights that can be obtained with this new method could be of use to many fields and can generate many new hypotheses to test in the future.

The concept of recognition developed through the 20th century as a form of political legitimation has served a central if problematic role in understanding international politics. On the one hand, recognition aims toward establishing essential collective identities that must be conceived as relatively stable in order to then gain respect, receive political protection, and occupy both physical and discursive space. On the other hand, recognition tacitly accepts a social constructivist view of the subject who can only become whole unto itself – and in turn exercise positive liberty, freedom, or agency – through the implied assent or explicit consent of another. There is an inherent tension between these two understandings of recognition. The attempt to reconcile this tension often manifests itself in forms of symbolic and systemic violence that can turn to corporeal harm. In order to enter into the concept, history, politics and performativity of recognition, I focus on what is often viewed as an exceptionally complex and uniquely controversial case: the Israel-Palestine conflict. Undergoing a discourse analysis of three epistemic communities (i.e., the State/diplomatic network, the Academic/intellectual network, the Military-Security network) and their unique modes of veridiction, I show how each works to construct the notion of ethno-nationalism as a necessary political logic that holds the promise of everything put in its right place: Us here, Them there. All three epistemic communities are read as knowledge/power networks that have substantial effect on political subjects and subjectivities. Influenced by the philosophy of Hegel and Levinas, and supported by the works of Michel Foucault, Wendy Brown, Alphonso Lingis, Jacques Derrida, Patchen Markell, and others, I show the ways in which our current politics of recognition is best read as violence. By tracing three discursive networks of knowledge/power implicated in our modern politics of recognition, I demonstrate forms of symbolic violence waged against the entire complex of the Israel-Palestine conflict in ways that preclude a just resolution based on mutual empathy, acknowledgment, and (re)cogntion.