Trump, the warrior male

By Sylvia Thompson

I recently read an interesting article in WND Magazine by Kent G. Bailey, Ph.D., titled "Donald Trump: Warrior Male Extraordinaire." Bailey's article addresses the feminization of the culture and how Trump defies that negative trend. I agree fully with his assessment that the Trump phenomenon is a good thing.

Over the past several decades, America has gradually succumbed to radical feminism's and homosexual activism's largely successful destruction of the concept of masculinity. This pernicious development is what led to the enshrining of a non-male such as Barack Obama into the American presidency, a position for which he is ill-equipped and one that he does not deserve.

The destruction that Obama has brought on this nation over the past six-plus years will require grave counter-measures to eradicate, not business as usual.

In assessing who among the several Republican primary candidates is best equipped to accomplish this reversal of Obama's destruction, I am looking first for masculine strength and second, a proven record of accomplishments (political or otherwise). I am not looking for a standout in a media-arranged "debate." Nor am I looking for a policy wonk.

At this point in the game, I prefer someone who can sit across a table from Vladimir Putin (a masculine man) and hold his own "mano a mano," as the saying goes. I am looking for someone who can spar with Xi Jinping, the President of The People's Republic of China (to whom we owe an enormous monetary debt). Someone who can contain Kim Jong-un (a disturbed man-child) and perhaps prevent his throwing a temper tantrum and destroying a good portion of the globe with a nuclear device. And most importantly, someone who will face down Ali Khamenei of Iran without the need to cover the hair in his presence.

In essence, I prefer masculine leadership.

The emphasis that some place on whether a presidential candidate can rattle off names of players on the world stage is of minor importance to me. As Trump observed, in the chaos of the current Middle East, "top dogs" change consistently. And as national policy goes, any candidate will bring to the table his own ideas on domestic, economic, and foreign-policy issues. His ideas will either enhance what is already in place or he can use the bully pulpit to attempt outright change.

Regarding issues about which he knows little or nothing, he can appoint knowledgeable people around him to address them. That's what a Presidential Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Congress (as advisors) are for. Nobody goes into the job of President of the United States knowing everything there is to know, not even experienced politicians. The fact that some candidates are presenting details of how they would like to approach issues does not mean very much at this point. These are only their hopes.

I have not as yet determined who I will vote for in the Republican primary, but I do know who I will not vote for, Dr. Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina.

Dr. Carson is an extraordinarily accomplished and praiseworthy American. Our nation is blessed in that he succeeded under such heavy odds. The track record for black men is seldom as good. He is the epitome of the "American dream" – moving up to great heights in spite of very humble beginnings. As such, he can be used mightily in a lawful administration and in a position more substantive than Vice President (technically, a backup). Surgeon General comes to mind.

I do not trust that white America will shed the "guilt" at this point in time (at least not subconsciously) and view him as just another President. As is the case with Obama, I am concerned that too many will be willing to excuse behavior or thinking that a white President would never be forgiven. That is not how our country should be run.

Carly Fiorina is admittedly another capable American, but bottom line, she is not a man. No matter how capable, she cannot face Vladimir Putin and the other predominantly male leaders on the world stage as a man would. I don't really care what the politically correct perception is on this matter. God designed men to be leaders and I, His humble (although not passive) servant, have no problem with that setup. It was His prerogative to set it up however He chose to, and He did.

I simply do not want to rely on Ms. Fiorina sitting across the table from Mr. Putin in a pitched battle of wills, his masculine and hers feminine. To me that makes for a distinct imbalance in the power game in Mr. Putin's favor.

I am aware that women throughout history have been leaders of nations. Golda Meir (former Prime Minister of Israel) and Margaret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Britain) are examples in recent history. Angela Merkel currently leads Germany. These women are extraordinary, and "extraordinary" by its nature is rare. If, then, I have the choice of a strong, capable leader between a man and a woman, my choice will always be the man.

Additionally, I have no interest in any more "firsts." Embracing "firsts" has not worked well for us as a nation.

It is my plan to continue following the remaining Republican male candidates for President. Among those, it is highly unlikely that I will vote for a typical "establishment" candidate.

I concluded after the 2012 Republican debacle, where party leaders pushed as many "conservative-lite" candidates down our throats as they could manage (Romney and my state senator Lamar Alexander among them), that I will not check the box for another non-conservative with an "R" after his name. I will skip that category of office and vote the rest of the ballot. And when the voting machine cautions that I have not voted in all categories, I will press "Confirm" and move on to fight another day.

© Sylvia Thompson