the republican party<u+2019>s politicians have mostly surrendered to donald trump. the republican party<u+2019>s entertainers have mostly been enthusiastic about his candidacy. but the conservative intelligentsia <u+2014> journalists, think-tankers and academics <u+2014> has been conspicuous in its resistance. now, though, we have <u+201c>writers and scholars for america<u+201d> <u+2014> a collection of prominent signatories to the proposition that given the available options, <u+201c>donald j. trump is the candidate most likely to restore the promise of america.<u+201d> the list of names is an interesting mix: there are hacks of the sort who inevitably flutter toward trump<u+2019>s flame, but there are also writers i<u+2019>ve admired for many years. and while there is no unifying manifesto, it<u+2019>s possible to piece together the arguments that attract these thinkers to trump<u+2019>s candidacy. those arguments seem at first blush to be in tension. on the one hand, many of the pro-trump thinkers seem to believe that for all his distinctive vices, trump would probably end up governing largely as a conventional republican. believing as they do that liberal ideas are dangerous or destructive, these conservatives see the 2016 election as a straightforward lesser of two evils situation, in which the republican nominee<u+2019>s indecency is preferable to the damage that a hillary clinton presidency would all but guarantee. but then you also have others who are attracted to trump precisely because he isn<u+2019>t a conventional republican. reagan-era conservatism had its time and failed, these trump-supporting intellectuals suggest, and the time has come to roll the dice, to embrace a change agent even if he seems gross and seedy and bigoted, because the alternative is staying on a fatal course . some of these writers feel that the american republic has already gone under , we<u+2019>re just choosing between elected emperors, and you might as well gamble on a caesar who<u+2019>s willing to flay the empire<u+2019>s ruling class. others take the more modest view that trump is correct on particular issues (immigration, foreign policy, the importance of the nation-state) where the bipartisan consensus is often wrong , and his candidacy is a chance to vote against an elite worldview that desperately needs to be chastened and rebuked. i said that these two perspectives seem to be in tension, but it<u+2019>s actually pretty easy to combine them. if trump gets restrained by his advisers, he<u+2019>ll be a typical republican , this combination would go, and if he stays true to his own essential trumpiness, he<u+2019>ll be the scourge our rotten system needs . if ideas were all, this would be a plausible argument. trump is too mercurial to be fully trusted on judicial appointments or any other issue that matters to the right. but it<u+2019>s reasonable to think that the way he<u+2019>s campaigned <u+2014> on a mix of standard-issue republican ideas and populist-nationalist heresies <u+2014> is the way that he will try to govern. but the problem comes in with that one word, <u+201c>try.<u+201d> set aside for a moment trump<u+2019>s low character, his penchant for inflaming racial tensions, his personal corruptions. assume for the sake of argument that all that can be folded into a <u+201c>lesser of two evils<u+201d> case. what remains is this question: can donald trump actually execute the basic duties of the presidency? is there any way that his administration won<u+2019>t be a flaming train wreck from the start? is there any possibility that he<u+2019>ll be levelheaded in a crisis <u+2014> be it another 9/11 or financial meltdown, or any of the lesser-but-still-severe challenges that presidents reliably face? i think we have seen enough from his campaign <u+2014> up to and including his wretchedly stupid conduct since the first debate <u+2014> to answer confidently, <u+201c>no.<u+201d> trump<u+2019>s zest for self-sabotage, his wild swings, his inability to delegate or take advice, are not mere flaws; they are defining characteristics. the burdens of the presidency will leave him permanently maddened, perpetually undone. even if that undoing doesn<u+2019>t lead to economic or geopolitical calamity (yes, virginia, there are worse things than the iraq war), which cause or idea associated with trumpism is likely to emerge stronger after a four-year train wreck? not populism or immigration restrictionism. not evangelical christianity. not economic conservatism. they<u+2019>ll all be lashed to the mast of a burning ship whose captain is angrily tweeting from the poop deck. months ago, i worried that trump was too authoritarian to be entrusted with the presidency. that worry has receded a bit, because authoritarianism requires a ruthless sort of competence that trump cannot attain. but fecklessness in the presidency can be as destructive as malice, and not just to the country: a disastrous chief executive can do devastating damage to his own political ideas. in this sense the intellectuals<u+2019> case for donald trump fails because it cannot shake free of those ideas and see the personal element here clearly. what trump believes, what he intends to do in office <u+2014> those questions are ultimately secondary to the problem of the man himself, and the near-certainty that he will fail, and in failing, betray anyone who has lent him their support. i invite you to follow me on twitter (@douthatnyt) . follow the new york times opinion section on facebook and twitter (@nytopinion) , and sign up for the opinion today newsletter . a version of this op-ed appears in print on october 2, 2016, on page sr11 of the new york edition with the headline: trump and the  intellectuals. today's paper | subscribe
trump and the intellectuals
noauthor