Presidential debates are forums designed to present and select candidates for national office: Their purpose is to provide opportunities for candidates to win over undecided voters, to reinforce voters who have already made a decision about who to vote for, and to change the minds of those who are willing to reconsider their initial judgments concerning which candidate seems more fit to serve as president. Edward Hinck argues that debates are not primarily about presidential policy-making. Rather, they are opportunities to demonstrate a candidate's ability to lead by summarizing, in a specific test of presidential character, the larger conflict between the candidates. Hinck develops an in-depth rhetorical analysis of the presidential and vice presidential debates of 1960 to 1988. The analysis of each series of debates begins with an introduction that focuses discussion on the most important aspects of political image for each of the candidates, then develops a case for understanding the ways in which the debates revealed the rhetorical strengths and weaknesses of each candidate's performance. Hinck's neo-Aristotelian approach asserts that debates serve both deliberative and epideictic ends because they provide important information about the candidates that cannot be disclosed except in the dramatic confrontation of the debate, and because this dramatic confrontation enacts the democratic values of rational dialogue. Enacting The Presidency is recommended to scholars in communication and political science.

Popular interpretations of American government tend to center on the presidency. Successes and failures of government are often attributed to presidents themselves. But, though the White House stands as a powerful symbol of government, the United States has a separated system intentionally designed to distribute power, not to concentrate it. Charles O. Jones explains that focusing exclusively on the presidency can lead to a seriously distorted picture of how the national government works. The role of the president varies widely, depending on his resources, advantages, and strategic position. Public expectations often far exceed the president's personal, political, institutional, or constitutional capacities for achievement. Jones explores how presidents find their place in the permanent government and how they are "fitted in" by others, most notably those on Capitol Hill. This book shows how a separated system of government works under the circumstances created by the Constitution and encouraged by a two-party system. Jones examines the organizational challenges facing presidents, their public standing and what it means, presidential agendas and mandates, and lawmaking—how it works, where the president fits in, and how it varies from issue to issue. He compares the post-World War II presidents and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of each in working within the separated system. Jones proposes a view of government as a legitimate, even productive, form of decisionmaking and emphasizes the varying strategies available to presidents for governing. He concludes with a number of important lessons for presidents and advice on how to make the separated system work better.