What do you think?
Rate this book
The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III
Co-authored by the Chief White House correspondent at The New York Times and the Washington columnist at the The New Yorker, this is a biography any would-be power broker must own: the story of legendary White House chief of staff and secretary of state James A. Baker III, the man who ran Washington when Washington ran the world.
In the latter half of the twentieth century, no Republican won the presidency without his help, and the men he counseled in the Oval Office--Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush--defined more than one generation of American life. Campaign manager, chief of staff, treasury secretary, and ultimately secretary of state, James A. Baker III understood better than anyone how to make Washington work and how to pull the levers of power at home and abroad.
A suave and profane Texas Democrat, Baker worked as a wealthy Houston lawyer until his best friend, George H. W. Bush, drew him into Republican politics. His first dramatic win was in 1976 as the delegate hunter who secured the Republican nomination for Ford against a challenge from Ronald Reagan. His next job, as Bush's campaign manager four years later, maneuvered Bush onto the ticket with Reagan and Baker into the most powerful office in Washington other than the Oval Office: White House chief of staff.
In his years in the White House and in the cabinet, Baker was the avatar of a style of politics and governance that valued pragmatism and deal making over purity. He went from win to win--reforming the tax code, negotiating the first Middle East peace talks, managing the dissolution of the Soviet Union--until his capstone victory, as field marshal for the younger Bush's Florida recount battle, helped divide the country forever. In today's era of gridlock, The Man Who Ran Washington is an electrifying escape.
In the latter half of the twentieth century, no Republican won the presidency without his help, and the men he counseled in the Oval Office--Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush--defined more than one generation of American life. Campaign manager, chief of staff, treasury secretary, and ultimately secretary of state, James A. Baker III understood better than anyone how to make Washington work and how to pull the levers of power at home and abroad.
A suave and profane Texas Democrat, Baker worked as a wealthy Houston lawyer until his best friend, George H. W. Bush, drew him into Republican politics. His first dramatic win was in 1976 as the delegate hunter who secured the Republican nomination for Ford against a challenge from Ronald Reagan. His next job, as Bush's campaign manager four years later, maneuvered Bush onto the ticket with Reagan and Baker into the most powerful office in Washington other than the Oval Office: White House chief of staff.
In his years in the White House and in the cabinet, Baker was the avatar of a style of politics and governance that valued pragmatism and deal making over purity. He went from win to win--reforming the tax code, negotiating the first Middle East peace talks, managing the dissolution of the Soviet Union--until his capstone victory, as field marshal for the younger Bush's Florida recount battle, helped divide the country forever. In today's era of gridlock, The Man Who Ran Washington is an electrifying escape.
688 pages, Hardcover
First published September 29, 2020
About the author
Peter Baker
98 books211 followersThere is more than one author with this name in the database.
Peter Baker has been a journalist for the Washington Post and the New York Times. He covered President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, resulting in the book The Breach. As the Post's Moscow bureau chief, he wrote the book Kremlin Rising. He is married to the journalist Susan Glasser.
Peter Baker has been a journalist for the Washington Post and the New York Times. He covered President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, resulting in the book The Breach. As the Post's Moscow bureau chief, he wrote the book Kremlin Rising. He is married to the journalist Susan Glasser.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 310 reviews
October 12, 2020
https://thebestbiographies.com/2020/1...
Published last month, “The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III” is the product of seven years of work by husband-and-wife team Peter Baker and Susan Glasser. Peter Baker (no relation to James) is chief White House correspondent for The New York Times and the author of books on George W. Bush, Barack Obama’s presidency and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Glasser is a writer for The New Yorker and CNN global affairs analyst.
This biography’s most basic strength is the extensive research underlying its preparation including more than two-hundred interviews of James Baker’s friends, family, colleagues, political enemies…and at least three former presidents. And while the authors interviewed Baker on at least two-dozen occasions, this is not an authorized biography – or hagiography. It is generally complimentary of its Baker’s life and legacy but does not shy away his weaknesses (both real and perceived).
Most readers will find the narrative exceptionally fluid, informative, penetrating and endlessly engaging. For much of its run the book puts the reader in the room with Baker – whether he is managing a presidential campaign, negotiating tax legislation or cajoling a foreign head-of-state to achieve a diplomatic goal. The liberal inclusion of in-the-moment dialogue often causes the narrative to read like a script from Aaron Sorkin’s award-winning television series The West Wing filled with witty banter and clever exchanges.
The heart of this book is clearly the four-hundred pages which cover Baker’s years inside the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidential administrations. These years – from 1980 to 1992 – saw Baker wear several hats including White House chief of staff, campaign manager, Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State. This is also the period when he wielded almost unparalleled power and influence in Washington.
But the most valuable aspect of the biography is not its review of Baker’s job performance or an audit of his strengths and weaknesses. Rather, it is the authors’ ongoing exploration and evaluation of his extraordinarily close, uncommonly synergistic, and occasionally competitive partnership with George H.W. Bush – a friendship that lasted six decades.
At times, the biography can be more about the era than the man – though not to a fault. Baker lived, and operated, in momentous times and some of the events in which he played a part were much larger than any one person. Fortunately the text never strays far from Baker.
Aficionados of scholarly biographies are also likely to observe this book has a tendency to feel less like weighty, consequential history than an easy-to-read popular biography given its extensive reliance on quoted dialogue (much of which emanates from taped interviews or diary entries…but some of which seems to have emerged di fideli from the memory of interviewees decades after unrecorded moments or events).
And occasionally – particularly in the book’s earliest and in its last pages – the narrative becomes needlessly consumed with Donald Trump’s recent political ascension and the attendant deterioration in the political tone of the times.
But overall, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser have written an extremely interesting, remarkably informative and highly readable biography of an accomplished political strategist and manager, trusted aide and skilled diplomat. Anyone interested in the pragmatic use of political power, or in James Baker's life and legacy in particular, will find this biography both extraordinarily rewarding and revealing.
Overall rating: 4¼ stars
Published last month, “The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III” is the product of seven years of work by husband-and-wife team Peter Baker and Susan Glasser. Peter Baker (no relation to James) is chief White House correspondent for The New York Times and the author of books on George W. Bush, Barack Obama’s presidency and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Glasser is a writer for The New Yorker and CNN global affairs analyst.
This biography’s most basic strength is the extensive research underlying its preparation including more than two-hundred interviews of James Baker’s friends, family, colleagues, political enemies…and at least three former presidents. And while the authors interviewed Baker on at least two-dozen occasions, this is not an authorized biography – or hagiography. It is generally complimentary of its Baker’s life and legacy but does not shy away his weaknesses (both real and perceived).
Most readers will find the narrative exceptionally fluid, informative, penetrating and endlessly engaging. For much of its run the book puts the reader in the room with Baker – whether he is managing a presidential campaign, negotiating tax legislation or cajoling a foreign head-of-state to achieve a diplomatic goal. The liberal inclusion of in-the-moment dialogue often causes the narrative to read like a script from Aaron Sorkin’s award-winning television series The West Wing filled with witty banter and clever exchanges.
The heart of this book is clearly the four-hundred pages which cover Baker’s years inside the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidential administrations. These years – from 1980 to 1992 – saw Baker wear several hats including White House chief of staff, campaign manager, Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State. This is also the period when he wielded almost unparalleled power and influence in Washington.
But the most valuable aspect of the biography is not its review of Baker’s job performance or an audit of his strengths and weaknesses. Rather, it is the authors’ ongoing exploration and evaluation of his extraordinarily close, uncommonly synergistic, and occasionally competitive partnership with George H.W. Bush – a friendship that lasted six decades.
At times, the biography can be more about the era than the man – though not to a fault. Baker lived, and operated, in momentous times and some of the events in which he played a part were much larger than any one person. Fortunately the text never strays far from Baker.
Aficionados of scholarly biographies are also likely to observe this book has a tendency to feel less like weighty, consequential history than an easy-to-read popular biography given its extensive reliance on quoted dialogue (much of which emanates from taped interviews or diary entries…but some of which seems to have emerged di fideli from the memory of interviewees decades after unrecorded moments or events).
And occasionally – particularly in the book’s earliest and in its last pages – the narrative becomes needlessly consumed with Donald Trump’s recent political ascension and the attendant deterioration in the political tone of the times.
But overall, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser have written an extremely interesting, remarkably informative and highly readable biography of an accomplished political strategist and manager, trusted aide and skilled diplomat. Anyone interested in the pragmatic use of political power, or in James Baker's life and legacy in particular, will find this biography both extraordinarily rewarding and revealing.
Overall rating: 4¼ stars
January 31, 2021
Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for the New York Times and Susan Glasser, a staff writer for The New Yorker have written an engrossing biography of James Baker III, a man whose impact from 1976 through the election of 2000 can not be denied. The book’s range is impressive as the authors describe a childhood under the thumb of a father whose nickname was “the Warden.” As an adult we witness the death of his wife from cancer at a young age and a remarriage that merged two families resulting in eight children, a number of which experienced numerous problems including drugs and alcohol. Baker would give up the practice of law in Texas and move on to a political education in Washington, D.C. that produced lessons that stressed how to accumulate power and brook no opposition as he managed political campaigns, served as Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan as well as Treasury Secretary, and Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush. Based on his resume it is obvious why the authors titled their book, THE MAN WHO RAN WASHINGTON: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JAMES BAKER III.
Baker and Glasser employ the tools of investigative reporters in addition to those of a historian. They have an excellent command of the written word and have the ability to present their narrative and analysis in a deeply thoughtful manner. Baker is the author of books including DAYS OF FIRE: BUSH AND CHENEY IN THE WHITE HOUSE; THE BREACH: INSIDE THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEEFERON CLINTON, and an excellent biography of Barack Obama entitled OBAMA: THE CALL OF HISTORY. Glasser is the author of COVERING POLITICS IN POST TRUTH AMERICA, and co-authored with Peter Baker, KREMLIN RISING: VADIMIR PUTIN’S RUSSIA AND THE END OF REVOLUTION. For those unfamiliar with the work of the author’s they are in for a treat.
Baker is one of the most consequential political figures of the last quarter of the 20th century. He seems to have been involved in most issues and policy decisions of the period ranging from managing successful presidential campaigns, gaining passage of the Reagan tax cuts, the reunification of Germany, the end of the Soviet Union as we knew it, the removal of Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait, and heading the legal team that resulted in the election of George W. Bush as president in 2000. Each of these topics is explored in depth as the authors delve into the personalities involved, their political agendas, and the historical impact of each decision as events played out.
Two themes that dominate the narrative and analysis is how Baker earned the nickname the “velvet hammer,” and his relationship with President George H.W. Bush. The nickname itself as the authors develop is based on Baker’s approach to achieving power, control, and at times domination of any given situation. He comes across as a smooth, sweet talking Texan, but in reality, he played hardball whenever he felt it was necessary. He cut his teeth on the campaign trail, the in fighting that dominated the Reagan administration, and achieving legislative victories. His approach in the domestic area can also be seen in his conduct of foreign policy as he sought to impose his will on those who opposed him and, in many cases, it seemed as if he was president, not the then occupant of the White House.
The second theme rests on Baker’s friendship with President Bush. The two developed a decades long friendship from the time they met at a Houston Country Club in 1961. Baker earned the imprimatur of Bush and when he spoke or negotiated everyone knew he was speaking for the President, or earlier the Vice-President. The authors do an excellent job describing their relationship which rested on a similar outlook, a close personal bonding that witnessed numerous vacations together in addition to policy decisions. Baker was artful in at times manipulating Bush to achieve his aims and periodically the president grew resentful of his friend to the point that Barbara Bush never really warmed up to Baker and at times did not trust him until later in life.
Baker did not become the ultimate insider because of any fervent ideology, though he described himself as a conservative Republican. However, more so than anyone of his generation he figured out how to employ the levers of power. Today, in an era of extreme partisanship, “deals” are seen as a sign of weakness, but for Baker compromise to achieve an end, diplomacy, and raw power were his mantra. One of Baker’s talents rested on how he cultivated Congress and the press, which he did assiduously. He realized that power was in part perception and he did more to create that perception than any of his peers.
As the Cold war concluded, Baker had the skill set that fit the era whether developing a close working relationship with Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze or initiating bureaucratic intrigue to achieve a domestic goal in the Reagan and Bush administrations. When Baker made a promise, he earned the reputation of being able to deliver because of his relationship with Reagan and Bush and his own negotiating abilities. Never in American history did a president and Secretary of State enjoy a genuine friendship before entering office. Baker learned to operate in a political environment by employing his skill set, a skill set that was highly successful and current politicians would do very well if they would emulate him as he is best described by the authors as the “un-Trump.”
As successful as Baker was as a political insider and practitioner of power the authors develop his family history which is not one that one should emulate. He left it to his second wife to take care of the family as he worked twelve hours a day on domestic issues and once, he became America’s chief diplomat traveling thousands of miles each year. The children of both marriages had difficulties integrating and there were numerous conflicts which would lead to difficult issues that needed to be faced, and for the most part he was absent.
The authors develop numerous scenarios that reflect Baker’s talents as a politician and negotiator. He believed that there was no way to achieve 100% of one’s goals in any negotiation and was happy to obtain 75% or any percentage that he believed would deliver most of what he hoped to achieve. This can be seen during the Reagan administration when he outmaneuvered the likes of Alexander Haig and Edward Meese on numerous occasions, as he worked with Democrats to save Social Security when Republicans were obstinate, or negotiating the Reagan tax cut with Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. In all areas Baker seemed to have a superb instinct at “self-preservation,” be it dealing with the stock market crash in October 1987, his reaction to the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, or leaving US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie out to dry in the lead up to war in the Persian Gulf in 1991. The authors point out that Baker was a realist and argued against the ideologues in the Reagan administration particularly as it related to policy in Central America as he did his best to avoid the stain of Iran-Contra, again his antenna knew when to back off or proceed with a certain policy – it seemed he always knew which way the wind was blowing.
Baker’s pragmatic and realistic approach is also seen as he worked to allow Mikhail Gorbachev a semblance of comfort as his country was collapsing. Baker realized that the Soviet President had to deal with his own hard liners in the Kremlin and as he was wont to do would make subtle agreements behind the scenes that never became public. Baker had an extremely hard edge to him as the Israeli government realized after the United States and its coalition removed Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1991. Baker had used the promise of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as a lure to convince Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to join his coalition against Saddam. After the war Baker pressured Israeli Prime Minster Yitzchak Shamir, who he disliked intensely withholding promised funding and loans to finance the hundreds of thousand of Soviet Jews who were immigrating to Israel at the time. The end result was the Madrid Peace Conference which later impacted the signing of the Oslo Accords.
Baker long sought to be considered a statesman not just a fixer or dealmaker. However, the authors argue that he had no grand plan domestically or in foreign policy, but he had the knack of bringing people together and finding pragmatic ways to paper over disagreements. The end result, no matter what Baker engaged in, solutions resulted. Part of this success rests with a group of individuals that Baker and Glasser label the “plug-in unit,” a small group of aids that worked with him in the Reagan and Bush administrations. They included Margaret Tutwiler, who handled the press and Janet Mullins, Robert Zoellick and Robert Kimmitt who handled policy. Interestingly, the authors point out that though they worked closely together for years, Baker showed no interest in them as people and maintained a personal distance even among his most loyal staff.
Baker’s achievements did not come without some “black eyes.” Baker would work with Lee Atwater a Republican firebrand who did not find a dirty trick that did not interest him. The authors stress his role in the Willie Horton commercials in the 1988 presidential campaign against Michael Dukakis and Baker seemed to have no problem with it, in addition to his failures in dealing with the breakup of Yugoslavia and the ethnic and religious violence that ensued. His approach in 2000 is typical. When Al Gore’s spokesperson Warren Christopher proposed that the two sides work out a solution, Baker’s position was clear, no negotiations, Bush was president according to the Supreme Court.
Baker and Glasser had unfettered access to Baker and many of the key characters from the period. Their numerous interviews will not be repeated down the road by future historians, and their insider access and command of primary and secondary materials is evident. The authors do not fall into the trap of hagiography and have written a superb book that is easily the seminal work on James Baker III, and probably will remain so for years to come.
Baker and Glasser employ the tools of investigative reporters in addition to those of a historian. They have an excellent command of the written word and have the ability to present their narrative and analysis in a deeply thoughtful manner. Baker is the author of books including DAYS OF FIRE: BUSH AND CHENEY IN THE WHITE HOUSE; THE BREACH: INSIDE THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF WILLIAM JEEFERON CLINTON, and an excellent biography of Barack Obama entitled OBAMA: THE CALL OF HISTORY. Glasser is the author of COVERING POLITICS IN POST TRUTH AMERICA, and co-authored with Peter Baker, KREMLIN RISING: VADIMIR PUTIN’S RUSSIA AND THE END OF REVOLUTION. For those unfamiliar with the work of the author’s they are in for a treat.
Baker is one of the most consequential political figures of the last quarter of the 20th century. He seems to have been involved in most issues and policy decisions of the period ranging from managing successful presidential campaigns, gaining passage of the Reagan tax cuts, the reunification of Germany, the end of the Soviet Union as we knew it, the removal of Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait, and heading the legal team that resulted in the election of George W. Bush as president in 2000. Each of these topics is explored in depth as the authors delve into the personalities involved, their political agendas, and the historical impact of each decision as events played out.
Two themes that dominate the narrative and analysis is how Baker earned the nickname the “velvet hammer,” and his relationship with President George H.W. Bush. The nickname itself as the authors develop is based on Baker’s approach to achieving power, control, and at times domination of any given situation. He comes across as a smooth, sweet talking Texan, but in reality, he played hardball whenever he felt it was necessary. He cut his teeth on the campaign trail, the in fighting that dominated the Reagan administration, and achieving legislative victories. His approach in the domestic area can also be seen in his conduct of foreign policy as he sought to impose his will on those who opposed him and, in many cases, it seemed as if he was president, not the then occupant of the White House.
The second theme rests on Baker’s friendship with President Bush. The two developed a decades long friendship from the time they met at a Houston Country Club in 1961. Baker earned the imprimatur of Bush and when he spoke or negotiated everyone knew he was speaking for the President, or earlier the Vice-President. The authors do an excellent job describing their relationship which rested on a similar outlook, a close personal bonding that witnessed numerous vacations together in addition to policy decisions. Baker was artful in at times manipulating Bush to achieve his aims and periodically the president grew resentful of his friend to the point that Barbara Bush never really warmed up to Baker and at times did not trust him until later in life.
Baker did not become the ultimate insider because of any fervent ideology, though he described himself as a conservative Republican. However, more so than anyone of his generation he figured out how to employ the levers of power. Today, in an era of extreme partisanship, “deals” are seen as a sign of weakness, but for Baker compromise to achieve an end, diplomacy, and raw power were his mantra. One of Baker’s talents rested on how he cultivated Congress and the press, which he did assiduously. He realized that power was in part perception and he did more to create that perception than any of his peers.
As the Cold war concluded, Baker had the skill set that fit the era whether developing a close working relationship with Soviet Foreign Minister Edvard Shevardnadze or initiating bureaucratic intrigue to achieve a domestic goal in the Reagan and Bush administrations. When Baker made a promise, he earned the reputation of being able to deliver because of his relationship with Reagan and Bush and his own negotiating abilities. Never in American history did a president and Secretary of State enjoy a genuine friendship before entering office. Baker learned to operate in a political environment by employing his skill set, a skill set that was highly successful and current politicians would do very well if they would emulate him as he is best described by the authors as the “un-Trump.”
As successful as Baker was as a political insider and practitioner of power the authors develop his family history which is not one that one should emulate. He left it to his second wife to take care of the family as he worked twelve hours a day on domestic issues and once, he became America’s chief diplomat traveling thousands of miles each year. The children of both marriages had difficulties integrating and there were numerous conflicts which would lead to difficult issues that needed to be faced, and for the most part he was absent.
The authors develop numerous scenarios that reflect Baker’s talents as a politician and negotiator. He believed that there was no way to achieve 100% of one’s goals in any negotiation and was happy to obtain 75% or any percentage that he believed would deliver most of what he hoped to achieve. This can be seen during the Reagan administration when he outmaneuvered the likes of Alexander Haig and Edward Meese on numerous occasions, as he worked with Democrats to save Social Security when Republicans were obstinate, or negotiating the Reagan tax cut with Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. In all areas Baker seemed to have a superb instinct at “self-preservation,” be it dealing with the stock market crash in October 1987, his reaction to the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, or leaving US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie out to dry in the lead up to war in the Persian Gulf in 1991. The authors point out that Baker was a realist and argued against the ideologues in the Reagan administration particularly as it related to policy in Central America as he did his best to avoid the stain of Iran-Contra, again his antenna knew when to back off or proceed with a certain policy – it seemed he always knew which way the wind was blowing.
Baker’s pragmatic and realistic approach is also seen as he worked to allow Mikhail Gorbachev a semblance of comfort as his country was collapsing. Baker realized that the Soviet President had to deal with his own hard liners in the Kremlin and as he was wont to do would make subtle agreements behind the scenes that never became public. Baker had an extremely hard edge to him as the Israeli government realized after the United States and its coalition removed Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1991. Baker had used the promise of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as a lure to convince Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to join his coalition against Saddam. After the war Baker pressured Israeli Prime Minster Yitzchak Shamir, who he disliked intensely withholding promised funding and loans to finance the hundreds of thousand of Soviet Jews who were immigrating to Israel at the time. The end result was the Madrid Peace Conference which later impacted the signing of the Oslo Accords.
Baker long sought to be considered a statesman not just a fixer or dealmaker. However, the authors argue that he had no grand plan domestically or in foreign policy, but he had the knack of bringing people together and finding pragmatic ways to paper over disagreements. The end result, no matter what Baker engaged in, solutions resulted. Part of this success rests with a group of individuals that Baker and Glasser label the “plug-in unit,” a small group of aids that worked with him in the Reagan and Bush administrations. They included Margaret Tutwiler, who handled the press and Janet Mullins, Robert Zoellick and Robert Kimmitt who handled policy. Interestingly, the authors point out that though they worked closely together for years, Baker showed no interest in them as people and maintained a personal distance even among his most loyal staff.
Baker’s achievements did not come without some “black eyes.” Baker would work with Lee Atwater a Republican firebrand who did not find a dirty trick that did not interest him. The authors stress his role in the Willie Horton commercials in the 1988 presidential campaign against Michael Dukakis and Baker seemed to have no problem with it, in addition to his failures in dealing with the breakup of Yugoslavia and the ethnic and religious violence that ensued. His approach in 2000 is typical. When Al Gore’s spokesperson Warren Christopher proposed that the two sides work out a solution, Baker’s position was clear, no negotiations, Bush was president according to the Supreme Court.
Baker and Glasser had unfettered access to Baker and many of the key characters from the period. Their numerous interviews will not be repeated down the road by future historians, and their insider access and command of primary and secondary materials is evident. The authors do not fall into the trap of hagiography and have written a superb book that is easily the seminal work on James Baker III, and probably will remain so for years to come.
July 3, 2020
This is a great biography by a person who ran 5 presidential campaigns and had a seat at the table during a number of important events. The biography is inciteful and at the same time deals with his strengths and flaws. Highly recommend this book.
October 11, 2020
Imagine a world where Washington was led by competent people and capable of achieving big things - hard to do in an era where we're not even trying.
If one man was responsible, it was James Baker, who lost the only election he attempted, whose first government office came at the age of 45. He managed or oversaw five presidential campaigns, served as chief of staff (twice), Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State. A rewrite of the tax code, the first Iraq War, deftly handling the end of the Cold War - almost anything we've done since compares unfavorably.
Peter Baker (one of my favorite authors since his "Days of Fire" chronicle of the Bush/Cheney administration) and Susan Glasser have produced something incredible here. In writing about a career that was relevant over so many decades, they consistently find the right focus, never giving us too much or too little.
When they set out to write this seven years ago, they couldn't have imagined how nostalgic we would be for a government that functioned, much less worked well, an America that led in the world, and extremely competent people at the helm of state. But Jim Baker would be the first to tell you about the importance of timing and a little bit of luck. And so this masterful biography comes right when we need it most.
If one man was responsible, it was James Baker, who lost the only election he attempted, whose first government office came at the age of 45. He managed or oversaw five presidential campaigns, served as chief of staff (twice), Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State. A rewrite of the tax code, the first Iraq War, deftly handling the end of the Cold War - almost anything we've done since compares unfavorably.
Peter Baker (one of my favorite authors since his "Days of Fire" chronicle of the Bush/Cheney administration) and Susan Glasser have produced something incredible here. In writing about a career that was relevant over so many decades, they consistently find the right focus, never giving us too much or too little.
When they set out to write this seven years ago, they couldn't have imagined how nostalgic we would be for a government that functioned, much less worked well, an America that led in the world, and extremely competent people at the helm of state. But Jim Baker would be the first to tell you about the importance of timing and a little bit of luck. And so this masterful biography comes right when we need it most.
December 6, 2020
"The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III," by Peter Baker (no relations to James Baker) and Susan Glassner is an extraordinary, comprehensive, well-written biography about arguably the most accomplished, successful, Secretary of State in the post World War 2 era. I know people will argue that it was Henry Kissinger (and Kissinger would have no argument with that) but when you start adding the plus and minuses that each man's career produced I give the nod to Mr. Baker.
What is most amazing about Mr. Baker's career in politics is that he had little to no interest in politics until his friend President George H.W. Bush sort of nudge him into the President Ford's reelection campaign, which would forever have the ghost of Watergate and Nixon hanging over it. He was already in his forties at the time, and yet he managed to make Ford's race against President Carter a lot closer than anyone would have imagined.
He then went on to run President Bush's unsuccessful campaign against President Reagan in 1980, and yet was influential in President Reagan picking Mr. Bush as Vice President. Reagan was so impressed with Baker, that he let Mr. Baker run his hugely successful Presidential campaign from the end of the convention to the election.
President Reagan then picked Mr. Baker as his Chief of Staff, and many to this very day will say that he might have been the best Chief of Staff in the post World War 2 era. He was often referred to by outsiders as the real President, behind Reagan's major successes.
In President Reagan's second term, burned out as Chief of Staff, he became Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury and was confirmed by the Senate 96-0, and was amazingly successful.
In 1988, he ran President Bush's campaign, which was hugely successful and became President Bush's Secretary of State and would manage the unification of Germany, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Middle East, and the uniting of world leaders against Saddam Hussian's invasion of Kuwait in the first Iraqi War. The dexterity with which he handled all this is a an accomplishment of such beauty and patience that to me it is mind boggling.
This biography is a must read for anyone seriously interested in world affairs, politics and government. It is an unbiased look at a great but flawed diplomat, and a very sad commentary of how very low we have come from the time of James A. Baker III and President George H.W. Bush in the span of 24 years, and especially in the second decade of the 21st century.
What is most amazing about Mr. Baker's career in politics is that he had little to no interest in politics until his friend President George H.W. Bush sort of nudge him into the President Ford's reelection campaign, which would forever have the ghost of Watergate and Nixon hanging over it. He was already in his forties at the time, and yet he managed to make Ford's race against President Carter a lot closer than anyone would have imagined.
He then went on to run President Bush's unsuccessful campaign against President Reagan in 1980, and yet was influential in President Reagan picking Mr. Bush as Vice President. Reagan was so impressed with Baker, that he let Mr. Baker run his hugely successful Presidential campaign from the end of the convention to the election.
President Reagan then picked Mr. Baker as his Chief of Staff, and many to this very day will say that he might have been the best Chief of Staff in the post World War 2 era. He was often referred to by outsiders as the real President, behind Reagan's major successes.
In President Reagan's second term, burned out as Chief of Staff, he became Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury and was confirmed by the Senate 96-0, and was amazingly successful.
In 1988, he ran President Bush's campaign, which was hugely successful and became President Bush's Secretary of State and would manage the unification of Germany, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Middle East, and the uniting of world leaders against Saddam Hussian's invasion of Kuwait in the first Iraqi War. The dexterity with which he handled all this is a an accomplishment of such beauty and patience that to me it is mind boggling.
This biography is a must read for anyone seriously interested in world affairs, politics and government. It is an unbiased look at a great but flawed diplomat, and a very sad commentary of how very low we have come from the time of James A. Baker III and President George H.W. Bush in the span of 24 years, and especially in the second decade of the 21st century.
October 18, 2020
This is a long, well researched biography of an important man. Its a good supplement to the library of anyone interested in the history of the U.S. from the sixties through the 2000s. And yet, in spite of the pains the author takes to be accurate, and put everything into historical context, it is strangely flat. Baker is surrounded by fascinating people, the Bushes, the Reagans, Russian leaders, Arab leaders, Senators and Congressional reps. How odd it is that in this very long and varied career he seems to have so few insights that go beyond how to be an effective bureaucrat, how to be organized, how to work harder than anyone else and be more prepared.
Baker doesn't have many original insights or humorous ones. Its really no wonder that he didn't pursue political office. He's not really a leader. However, he was a brilliant implementer of the plans of leaders. Most of the interesting insights in this book come from the people around Baker, not from him. Baker comes off as a good old boy, comfortable with men of his generation, and women who have made it their business to figure out how to work with them.
Baker's every thought on the serious issues of his life including war, AIDs, civil rights, women's rights etc, seems to be about how to implement the policies of the leader. He doesn't seem to have been kept up at night worrying about what these things were doing to the country, only about whether he was getting his job done for whatever President. He hated being thought of as a "fixer" but a fixer he was even as Secretary of State.
The book begins with his quandary as to whether to vote for Donald Trump. He can't stand Trump but Trump is a Republican. In the end he votes for Trump. There we have the key flaw in the man. We are lucky he worked for Reagan and Bush.
Baker doesn't have many original insights or humorous ones. Its really no wonder that he didn't pursue political office. He's not really a leader. However, he was a brilliant implementer of the plans of leaders. Most of the interesting insights in this book come from the people around Baker, not from him. Baker comes off as a good old boy, comfortable with men of his generation, and women who have made it their business to figure out how to work with them.
Baker's every thought on the serious issues of his life including war, AIDs, civil rights, women's rights etc, seems to be about how to implement the policies of the leader. He doesn't seem to have been kept up at night worrying about what these things were doing to the country, only about whether he was getting his job done for whatever President. He hated being thought of as a "fixer" but a fixer he was even as Secretary of State.
The book begins with his quandary as to whether to vote for Donald Trump. He can't stand Trump but Trump is a Republican. In the end he votes for Trump. There we have the key flaw in the man. We are lucky he worked for Reagan and Bush.
October 26, 2020
In 2000 I remember when Baker was sent to the Florida recount and thought, Oh shit, its over.
This is not only a great bio, its a birds eye view of American History from a guy who had a front row seat for a quarter century or so.
Great, great great book.
This is not only a great bio, its a birds eye view of American History from a guy who had a front row seat for a quarter century or so.
Great, great great book.
February 22, 2024
Really phenomenal. Baker is probably an easy person to write a biography of - he’s a compelling character who’s had an interesting life and played a significant role in domestic politics and international relations for ~30 years. This book definitely highlights all of that. You come to know Baker as the incredibly calculating, shrewd, and reputation-conscious operator that he is. It also provides a good historical overview of the major events that occurred throughout his time in Washington (up to and including the Iraq War Commission), but never loses the focus on Baker. It never strays too far from being a true biography, which makes it an informative but always personal read.
But I think what makes this book so outstanding is the secondary plot line. While ostensibly detailing Baker’s life, the book also more subtly tracks how Washington has changed over the years. Sometimes the authors outright make comparisons between “Baker’s Washington in which deals got done” and today, which I found disappointing - not because I disagree, but because I think attentive readers will make such comparisons on their own, and that they are more powerful when left implied rather than explicitly mentioned. But through the biographical storytelling, you also get a view of how Washington used to, and arguably should, work.
The writing is nothing short of stellar. The stories just envelop you, there’s a perfect amount of detail, and you feel like you really get to know Baker in his many strengths and flaws, his political acumen, his obsession with his reputation, and his mental models of consequential decisions. Incredibly worthwhile.
But I think what makes this book so outstanding is the secondary plot line. While ostensibly detailing Baker’s life, the book also more subtly tracks how Washington has changed over the years. Sometimes the authors outright make comparisons between “Baker’s Washington in which deals got done” and today, which I found disappointing - not because I disagree, but because I think attentive readers will make such comparisons on their own, and that they are more powerful when left implied rather than explicitly mentioned. But through the biographical storytelling, you also get a view of how Washington used to, and arguably should, work.
The writing is nothing short of stellar. The stories just envelop you, there’s a perfect amount of detail, and you feel like you really get to know Baker in his many strengths and flaws, his political acumen, his obsession with his reputation, and his mental models of consequential decisions. Incredibly worthwhile.
January 19, 2021
** Audiobook ** Coming in at a 26 hours of listening, this is the comprehensive story of James Baker III's life. Through the book you get a full understanding of JAB III's connection to the Bush family and are thrown into the world of American politics from Ronald Regan through to Donald Trump. Baker's approach and bias for action is a reminder of politics-of-old and reminds me just how polarized our country has become. I would only recommend this to a determined reader of politics and biographies!
February 24, 2024
He taped his racy limericks to Scowcroft’s walls and cabinets. “They were very, very funny,” recalled Robert Gates, “and very obscene.”
James Baker III was a man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, if those bootstraps retailed at about a million apiece. A relatively consequential chief of staff, treasury secretary, secretary of state and consigliere, he is owed a biography.
Is he owed you reading it? Well... ...it’s not bad, at all, it’s just that it is not that essential.
As a positive, the book covers the main points of his political career – which I guess is worth a “Woohoo.” And to give a little more credit, the authors write clearly and avoid going down side alleys. Nor do they overwrite the context until it impinges on the main narrative and becomes confusing. Good writing in non-fiction is under-rated, so I would like to point it out when I see it.
As to how those career points are covered, I don’t have extra (or any) insight on James Baker or the inner workings of American executive government, so I am limited to mainly saying that the The Man Who Ran Washington is a plausible and well cited presentation of events. The overall perspective of Baker is that could have been a great president, held back only by being a hopeless candidate. However, there is the qualifier that, because Baker assisted with the book, his point of view tends to be favoured.
As a pertinent, if lightweight example, the authors carefully weigh up the assertions and counter-assertions in respect of George H W Bush’s affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald, solemnly giving weight to their respective denials. However, Fitzgerald’s campaign performance is thrown to the wolves on the words of Baker – the authors apparently being disinterested about her views of her actual job!
Otherwise, The Man Who Ran Washington is a wistful hearkening to the good old days of cross-party deals, when men were men, because there were only men – and apparently constantly telling dirty jokes – and if you wanted to secretly lean on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to not raise interest rates before an election, that’s cool too. It was a time where you could write that a man did not get there on the basis of his family name or wealth, although his early years were marked by the benefits of both and remain blissfully unaware of the contradiction in that statement. As for family, they exist solely as evidence of Baker’s sacrifice, and the authors avoid pushing harder on the stunningly obvious point that Baker was a shitty father to eight kids.
She confronted her husband. “Honey, I can’t do this,” she told him. “I am wiped out. I’m exhausted. We have all these kids, we have all these problems. I can’t do it. I can’t live in a fishbowl and do what I need to do for our family.”
He tried to mollify her, saying they should just see what would happen. She knew better than to believe his reassurances. Still, she would not stand in his way. She never had.
In a sense, there’s nothing inherently wrong with The Man Who Ran Washington. I can make these criticisms of Baker because the book does include them, even when it is implicit in the book’s sourcing choices. The book also avoids the Machiavellian portrayal that has seeped into popular histories of Baker, particularly after his contribution to the 2000 election. My main issue is that the book plays it very straight and narrow – you are easily better off reading histories of the period where Baker is a contributing source rather than the centrepiece.
Not bad for a Texas kid from the good ole upper middles.
Uh-huh.
If you want to dive deep enough into the Reagan/Bush I years, then you will (and should) eventually come to read The Man Who Ran Washington, and it’s not a hard one to read. However, don’t start here, not in any circumstances.
James Baker III was a man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, if those bootstraps retailed at about a million apiece. A relatively consequential chief of staff, treasury secretary, secretary of state and consigliere, he is owed a biography.
Is he owed you reading it? Well... ...it’s not bad, at all, it’s just that it is not that essential.
As a positive, the book covers the main points of his political career – which I guess is worth a “Woohoo.” And to give a little more credit, the authors write clearly and avoid going down side alleys. Nor do they overwrite the context until it impinges on the main narrative and becomes confusing. Good writing in non-fiction is under-rated, so I would like to point it out when I see it.
As to how those career points are covered, I don’t have extra (or any) insight on James Baker or the inner workings of American executive government, so I am limited to mainly saying that the The Man Who Ran Washington is a plausible and well cited presentation of events. The overall perspective of Baker is that could have been a great president, held back only by being a hopeless candidate. However, there is the qualifier that, because Baker assisted with the book, his point of view tends to be favoured.
As a pertinent, if lightweight example, the authors carefully weigh up the assertions and counter-assertions in respect of George H W Bush’s affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald, solemnly giving weight to their respective denials. However, Fitzgerald’s campaign performance is thrown to the wolves on the words of Baker – the authors apparently being disinterested about her views of her actual job!
Otherwise, The Man Who Ran Washington is a wistful hearkening to the good old days of cross-party deals, when men were men, because there were only men – and apparently constantly telling dirty jokes – and if you wanted to secretly lean on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to not raise interest rates before an election, that’s cool too. It was a time where you could write that a man did not get there on the basis of his family name or wealth, although his early years were marked by the benefits of both and remain blissfully unaware of the contradiction in that statement. As for family, they exist solely as evidence of Baker’s sacrifice, and the authors avoid pushing harder on the stunningly obvious point that Baker was a shitty father to eight kids.
She confronted her husband. “Honey, I can’t do this,” she told him. “I am wiped out. I’m exhausted. We have all these kids, we have all these problems. I can’t do it. I can’t live in a fishbowl and do what I need to do for our family.”
He tried to mollify her, saying they should just see what would happen. She knew better than to believe his reassurances. Still, she would not stand in his way. She never had.
In a sense, there’s nothing inherently wrong with The Man Who Ran Washington. I can make these criticisms of Baker because the book does include them, even when it is implicit in the book’s sourcing choices. The book also avoids the Machiavellian portrayal that has seeped into popular histories of Baker, particularly after his contribution to the 2000 election. My main issue is that the book plays it very straight and narrow – you are easily better off reading histories of the period where Baker is a contributing source rather than the centrepiece.
Not bad for a Texas kid from the good ole upper middles.
Uh-huh.
If you want to dive deep enough into the Reagan/Bush I years, then you will (and should) eventually come to read The Man Who Ran Washington, and it’s not a hard one to read. However, don’t start here, not in any circumstances.
June 17, 2023
Remarkable. Review to follow.
Shelved as 'maybe'
September 29, 2020PB: Never let them see you pee, never leave your enemies alone with the president and never forget who the real enemy is: the Pentagon: Jim Baker's seven rules for running Washington, from our new biography "THE MAN WHO RAN WASHINGTON."
October 25, 2020
An exceptional biography of a man who ran Washington when Washington ran the world. A dramatic and refreshing piece of scholarship written by journalists (one of whom is no relation to Baker himself) constituting several hours of interviews spanning years of work, this book was not authorized by James Baker though he agreed to be interviewed (70 hours worth) for it.
Baker had a hand with every Republican president’s campaign for the White House in the latter half of the 20th Century—Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43. A master politician who aspired to be more, and living under the shadows of his three generational paternal relations—one of whom helped establish and grow Houston, Texas—Baker seemed to be the bridesmaid but never the bride. Growing up he learned, and adhered to, the 5 P’s principle which became his work ethic standard—prior preparation prevents poor performance. And this showed in everything he touched. Starting out as an avowed Democrat he decisively switched allegiances after the sunrise of his political career.
Never actually winning any office of any kind through election, the educated and trained lawyer would go on to become ‘deputy’ or ‘co-President’ as a result of accumulated power and influence in Washington, of which he had no competition. Baker served in the highest of power positions from White House Chief of Staff twice (Reagan and Bush 41), Under Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State. He was even offered Secretary of Defense under Bush 43 but turned it down. He was the architect and penultimate politician and power broker who know how to manipulate all the right levers to get his way. Commonly known to be an information leaker, Baker was at the forefront in brokering some of the most significant and momentous events in modern US history including re-writing the US tax code, assembling the coalition that won the 1990 Gulf War, the re-unification of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and lastly, the Florida vote recount in the 2000 Presidential Election and 2003 Iraq Study Group Commission. A fantastic book!
Baker had a hand with every Republican president’s campaign for the White House in the latter half of the 20th Century—Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43. A master politician who aspired to be more, and living under the shadows of his three generational paternal relations—one of whom helped establish and grow Houston, Texas—Baker seemed to be the bridesmaid but never the bride. Growing up he learned, and adhered to, the 5 P’s principle which became his work ethic standard—prior preparation prevents poor performance. And this showed in everything he touched. Starting out as an avowed Democrat he decisively switched allegiances after the sunrise of his political career.
Never actually winning any office of any kind through election, the educated and trained lawyer would go on to become ‘deputy’ or ‘co-President’ as a result of accumulated power and influence in Washington, of which he had no competition. Baker served in the highest of power positions from White House Chief of Staff twice (Reagan and Bush 41), Under Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State. He was even offered Secretary of Defense under Bush 43 but turned it down. He was the architect and penultimate politician and power broker who know how to manipulate all the right levers to get his way. Commonly known to be an information leaker, Baker was at the forefront in brokering some of the most significant and momentous events in modern US history including re-writing the US tax code, assembling the coalition that won the 1990 Gulf War, the re-unification of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and lastly, the Florida vote recount in the 2000 Presidential Election and 2003 Iraq Study Group Commission. A fantastic book!
March 24, 2021
S/o to "Four for You" substack newsletter for my KILLER book recs.
Easy to forget the (often white men) running the show behind the presidents, who are arguably the true decision makers. No one seemingly had more influence on the trajectory of the late 20th century Republican Party than Jim Baker: "the most important unelected official since World War II."
Ford:
- Under Secretary of Commerce
- Ran Ford's 1976 presidential campaign (unsuccessful, but made a name for himself by turning a loosing campaign into a near victory)
Reagan:
- Chief of staff (nicknamed "co-president")
- Ran Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign
- Secretary of the Treasury (rewrote tax code and pioneered famous Reagan bipartisan tax reform; negotiated the groundbreaking United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, a template for future US trade deals)
H. w. Bush:
- Ran Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign
- Secretary of State (managed US response to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait)
- Chief of staff
George Bush:
- Managed legal team overseeing the Florida 2000 presidential recount
- summoned out of retirement to ‘fix’ the Iraq war
"He was no visionary, no innovator. He articulated no grand plan for the country or the world. There was a little idealism involved and a fair degree of opportunism. He was not above political hardball to advance his team’s chances at the ballot box. He never lost sight of what was good for Jim Baker. … But somehow in the main, it worked. Things got done.”
Easy to forget the (often white men) running the show behind the presidents, who are arguably the true decision makers. No one seemingly had more influence on the trajectory of the late 20th century Republican Party than Jim Baker: "the most important unelected official since World War II."
Ford:
- Under Secretary of Commerce
- Ran Ford's 1976 presidential campaign (unsuccessful, but made a name for himself by turning a loosing campaign into a near victory)
Reagan:
- Chief of staff (nicknamed "co-president")
- Ran Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign
- Secretary of the Treasury (rewrote tax code and pioneered famous Reagan bipartisan tax reform; negotiated the groundbreaking United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, a template for future US trade deals)
H. w. Bush:
- Ran Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign
- Secretary of State (managed US response to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait)
- Chief of staff
George Bush:
- Managed legal team overseeing the Florida 2000 presidential recount
- summoned out of retirement to ‘fix’ the Iraq war
"He was no visionary, no innovator. He articulated no grand plan for the country or the world. There was a little idealism involved and a fair degree of opportunism. He was not above political hardball to advance his team’s chances at the ballot box. He never lost sight of what was good for Jim Baker. … But somehow in the main, it worked. Things got done.”
December 13, 2020
The Man Who Could Get Things Done
James A. Baker was a man who could get things done in Washington. He could channel forces to focus on constructive outcomes and avoid potential disasters. He had a clear vision of what he wanted to accomplish. He could bring people together. He was instinctively conservative but never let ideology get it in the way of practical achievement. He was extraordinarily hard working and well organized. And, as a result, he shaped events that changed the world at a time of unprecedented American power, especially with regard to the breakup of the Soviet Union and its client states behind the Iron Curtain.
This is an insightful book that captures the man, offers an example of how to rise to power behind the throne, and provides an insider’s look into the workings of Washington. Husband and wife team Peter Baker, chief White House Correspondent for the New York Times, and Susan Glasser, founder of Politico and now with The New Yorker, are among the most respected reporters and political analysts in Washington. The book is the result of years of research, interviews with James Baker himself, and access to a wide range of people who worked with Baker in his many roles.
The breadth of Baker’s service is extraordinary, as White House Chief of Staff for Reagan and Bush 41, as Bush campaign manager, as Secretary of the Treasury, and as Secretary of State.
It is also a fair and balanced account. Baker is portrayed as a man who set practical goals not overly constrained by ideology or idealism. In rising to positions of power and influence he was was ambitious and opportunistic. Ironically, for a man who was a valuable advisor to those holding the highest office, and who was especially close to George H.W. Bush, Baker was himself a poor political candidate — lacking the common touch and ability to communicate with average voters. Early in his career he lost the only race he ever entered, for a Congressional seat in Texas. It was easy to see Baker as President, the authors observe, but hard to see him as a candidate.
Baker, the scion of Houston aristocracy, seemed to have no interest in politics as a young man. The authors point out that Baker’s letters before and during the Johnson presidency don’t reference the Cuban missile crisis, the assassination of JFK, Vietnam, or civil rights. He seemed headed for a lucrative but conventional career as a Texas corporate lawyer. His family held politicians in low regard. Only his friendship with George H.W. Bush connected him with the political world. Yet Baker became close to Bush and soon after was named campaign manager when Gerald Ford sought election as president in his own right.
What vaulted Baker into a position of influence, however, was his appointment as Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff. This was a position of significant power in Washington, given Reagan’s style of delegation and lack of attention to detail. Baker had to make himself Reagan’s alter ego without overstepping the bounds. He proved to be extraordinarily talented in this role.
Baker knew how to play the press, aware of deadlines, the need for each journalist to have something to differentiate his or her own stories, and the desire of reporters to boast of an “inside source.” “His version of events could be self-serving but was always accurate,” note the authors. Baker was a master of the leak to the press to set the framework of debate. Not incidentally, leaked stories positioned Baker as one of the most powerful men in Washington.
After George H.W. Bush left office, Baker continued to have influence but it never approached his of height power. An exception was Baker’s role in leading the Republican legal team representing George W. Bush during the Florida vote recount in 2000. A Supreme Court decision ultimately assured Bush’s victory over Al Gore. Bush 45 later tapped Baker to assess the situation in Iraq after the problems with occupation escalated. Baker led an Iraqi study report which lacked consistency, the authors say, but as a bipartisan assessment achieved consensus. Clearly, by then, Baker’s most powerful years were behind him.
The Washington of James Baker seems long ago and far away. We are left to speculate whether anyone, even someone of such talent, could get things done in today’s polarized Washington. But Peter Baker and Susan Glasser have given us an insider’s appreciation of how James Baker was a man who was well suited for his time and whose accomplishments were extraordinary.
James A. Baker was a man who could get things done in Washington. He could channel forces to focus on constructive outcomes and avoid potential disasters. He had a clear vision of what he wanted to accomplish. He could bring people together. He was instinctively conservative but never let ideology get it in the way of practical achievement. He was extraordinarily hard working and well organized. And, as a result, he shaped events that changed the world at a time of unprecedented American power, especially with regard to the breakup of the Soviet Union and its client states behind the Iron Curtain.
This is an insightful book that captures the man, offers an example of how to rise to power behind the throne, and provides an insider’s look into the workings of Washington. Husband and wife team Peter Baker, chief White House Correspondent for the New York Times, and Susan Glasser, founder of Politico and now with The New Yorker, are among the most respected reporters and political analysts in Washington. The book is the result of years of research, interviews with James Baker himself, and access to a wide range of people who worked with Baker in his many roles.
The breadth of Baker’s service is extraordinary, as White House Chief of Staff for Reagan and Bush 41, as Bush campaign manager, as Secretary of the Treasury, and as Secretary of State.
It is also a fair and balanced account. Baker is portrayed as a man who set practical goals not overly constrained by ideology or idealism. In rising to positions of power and influence he was was ambitious and opportunistic. Ironically, for a man who was a valuable advisor to those holding the highest office, and who was especially close to George H.W. Bush, Baker was himself a poor political candidate — lacking the common touch and ability to communicate with average voters. Early in his career he lost the only race he ever entered, for a Congressional seat in Texas. It was easy to see Baker as President, the authors observe, but hard to see him as a candidate.
Baker, the scion of Houston aristocracy, seemed to have no interest in politics as a young man. The authors point out that Baker’s letters before and during the Johnson presidency don’t reference the Cuban missile crisis, the assassination of JFK, Vietnam, or civil rights. He seemed headed for a lucrative but conventional career as a Texas corporate lawyer. His family held politicians in low regard. Only his friendship with George H.W. Bush connected him with the political world. Yet Baker became close to Bush and soon after was named campaign manager when Gerald Ford sought election as president in his own right.
What vaulted Baker into a position of influence, however, was his appointment as Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff. This was a position of significant power in Washington, given Reagan’s style of delegation and lack of attention to detail. Baker had to make himself Reagan’s alter ego without overstepping the bounds. He proved to be extraordinarily talented in this role.
Baker knew how to play the press, aware of deadlines, the need for each journalist to have something to differentiate his or her own stories, and the desire of reporters to boast of an “inside source.” “His version of events could be self-serving but was always accurate,” note the authors. Baker was a master of the leak to the press to set the framework of debate. Not incidentally, leaked stories positioned Baker as one of the most powerful men in Washington.
After George H.W. Bush left office, Baker continued to have influence but it never approached his of height power. An exception was Baker’s role in leading the Republican legal team representing George W. Bush during the Florida vote recount in 2000. A Supreme Court decision ultimately assured Bush’s victory over Al Gore. Bush 45 later tapped Baker to assess the situation in Iraq after the problems with occupation escalated. Baker led an Iraqi study report which lacked consistency, the authors say, but as a bipartisan assessment achieved consensus. Clearly, by then, Baker’s most powerful years were behind him.
The Washington of James Baker seems long ago and far away. We are left to speculate whether anyone, even someone of such talent, could get things done in today’s polarized Washington. But Peter Baker and Susan Glasser have given us an insider’s appreciation of how James Baker was a man who was well suited for his time and whose accomplishments were extraordinary.
Read
January 27, 2021I was very excited to read the latest from the ultimate journalism power couple! Although I was slightly concerned by the jacket description - the marketing dept pitches it as a (nostalgic?) "escape" to a bygone era - the book itself is actually an in-depth, critical look at the privileged, cutthroat world of Republican elites.
December 30, 2021
One of the best biographies I have read in quite some time. James Baker is one of those historical figures who few people know much about but who played a highly influential role in what our country has become. Baker ran presidential elections, was Chief of Staff to President Reagan and later President Bush, was Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of State. Helped George W. Bush win his election battle against Gore when the Florida issue happened. No matter your politics, Baker's story is an important one and for someone of my age, it was basically a political history of my lifetime in many ways.
September 13, 2021
James A Baker's career in politics spanned most of the late 20th century. From running presidential campaigns to Chief of Staff for Reagan and Bush #1 to Secretary of State, with many other roles in between. Having lived through this same era it was very entertaining, as well as enlightening, to now view it in hindsight. What a fascinating era, from the fall of Saigon through the fall of the Berlin Wall to the fall of the Twin Towers. And Baker had a front row seat for all of it.
This is not an authorized biography but the authors were given access to Baker as well as his papers and many of his colleagues. It appears to be a fairly evenhanded portrait. He is presented as a man often viewed as smarter than everyone else with an innate sense as to how to avoid blame. Because of this he was often viewed as selfish and only out for himself. But this is how most successful politicians are viewed.
While considered a very conservative Republican, the party's right wing distrusted him. The feeling was mutual, as he often battled with "right wing nuts" within his own party. Ever the pragmatist, he was able to orchestrate sweeping legislation by compromising with Democrats. Something unheard of in today's supercharged political environment. We need more people like Baker in government.
This is not an authorized biography but the authors were given access to Baker as well as his papers and many of his colleagues. It appears to be a fairly evenhanded portrait. He is presented as a man often viewed as smarter than everyone else with an innate sense as to how to avoid blame. Because of this he was often viewed as selfish and only out for himself. But this is how most successful politicians are viewed.
While considered a very conservative Republican, the party's right wing distrusted him. The feeling was mutual, as he often battled with "right wing nuts" within his own party. Ever the pragmatist, he was able to orchestrate sweeping legislation by compromising with Democrats. Something unheard of in today's supercharged political environment. We need more people like Baker in government.
December 11, 2020
This book provides a fascinating look into the life and career of James Baker, the moderate republican who managed five presidential campaigns and served in key positions under both Ronald Reagan and George Bush (chief of staff, treasury secretary, and secretary of state). Baker was a force for moderation and compromise, and was able to work very effectively as the man behind the president. He was a key figure in important events ranging from the stock market crash of 1987 to the fall of communism in Europe. I hope we can get some of his honesty and civility back into our political process.
March 27, 2021
Interesting book about an extraordinary life. A fascinating read about power and influence.
February 10, 2022
James Addison Baker III isn’t a household name and I never felt the need to read up on him. But The Man Who Ran Washington got excellent reviews and I am interested in the time Baker was active, mainly during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, when I grew up and didn’t much care about world affairs.
Even though Baker is not an obviously fascinating character, he’s neither a visionary nor oddball nor genius nor otherwise very colorful (although it is mentioned that his language could be very colorful), he is compelling because of the impact he had on historic events. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he didn’t get an especially easy ride. His parents, especially father and grandfather, were hard-driving and had very high expectations for him.
Baker was ambitious and pragmatic. His main goal was to win, and he was prepared to compromise to achieve the best feasible outcome. He was an avid dealmaker and networker, who built rapport with everyone. He instinctively knew what his opposite needed and what he had to concede to get what he wanted in return. Baker was tenacious and didn’t take no for an answer. He charmed and bullied as required, a diligent preparer who tried to leave nothing to chance. He is frequently described as a fixer. A sobriquet he did not care about, striving to be a statesman.
Generally, Baker was beholden to moral principles and liked to stay above the fray. But when he felt that he couldn’t win clean, he was prepared to go dirty, preferably having others commit the underhand tactics and maintain deniability. This was amply demonstrated during both of G. H. W. Bush presidential election campaigns led by Baker. Especially the treatment visited upon Dukakis.
Baker looked out for his friends and colleagues (he and George H.W. Bush were very tight), but he also looked after himself, so much that it was often criticized by friends and foes alike.
Baker’s life was centered around work and ambition. He can only have been home very rarely, especially during his stint as Secretary of State for Bush, during which he was constantly jetting around the world. The book contains details about family: Patchwork, lots of kids, and it surely must have been challenging for his wife to cope with this by herself most of the time.
Reading this book, I felt kind of nostalgic for a past where a centrist politician like Baker was able to succeed. Although he did have to fight hard-liners in his party, especially during the Reagan administration, when he was unfavorably compared to the more ideologically pure president. But with time, ideology became paramount, and the window of opportunity for a middle-of-the-road candidate narrowed, precluding Baker’s aspiration for a shot at the presidency. He didn’t want to be remembered as a failed candidate who might not even have gotten past the republican primaries.
Baker, playing second fiddle as Secretary of State, arguably had more influence and impact than G. H. W. Bush. To various degrees he shaped momentous events such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany and the campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Additionally, he managed the nearly impossible task of bringing Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs together for the first time to at least talk about peace in the Middle East.
Even after his multiple positions in government, Baker never really retired. He first went into business and became rich minting his reputation and connections. And the Bush family still required his fixer skills, most prominently in the Florida vote recount to ensure that George W. Bush prevailed over Al Gore.
The Man Who Ran Washington paints a largely positive picture of Baker but does mention his faults. Ultimately, he comes across as an immensely capable operator (and still a fixer). Baker would most likely have been a far better president than the recent Republicans the USA got.
This was a long read but an immensely compelling and informative journey and in some places even touching. One of the best books about politics I have ever read.
Even though Baker is not an obviously fascinating character, he’s neither a visionary nor oddball nor genius nor otherwise very colorful (although it is mentioned that his language could be very colorful), he is compelling because of the impact he had on historic events. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he didn’t get an especially easy ride. His parents, especially father and grandfather, were hard-driving and had very high expectations for him.
Baker was ambitious and pragmatic. His main goal was to win, and he was prepared to compromise to achieve the best feasible outcome. He was an avid dealmaker and networker, who built rapport with everyone. He instinctively knew what his opposite needed and what he had to concede to get what he wanted in return. Baker was tenacious and didn’t take no for an answer. He charmed and bullied as required, a diligent preparer who tried to leave nothing to chance. He is frequently described as a fixer. A sobriquet he did not care about, striving to be a statesman.
Generally, Baker was beholden to moral principles and liked to stay above the fray. But when he felt that he couldn’t win clean, he was prepared to go dirty, preferably having others commit the underhand tactics and maintain deniability. This was amply demonstrated during both of G. H. W. Bush presidential election campaigns led by Baker. Especially the treatment visited upon Dukakis.
Baker looked out for his friends and colleagues (he and George H.W. Bush were very tight), but he also looked after himself, so much that it was often criticized by friends and foes alike.
Baker’s life was centered around work and ambition. He can only have been home very rarely, especially during his stint as Secretary of State for Bush, during which he was constantly jetting around the world. The book contains details about family: Patchwork, lots of kids, and it surely must have been challenging for his wife to cope with this by herself most of the time.
Reading this book, I felt kind of nostalgic for a past where a centrist politician like Baker was able to succeed. Although he did have to fight hard-liners in his party, especially during the Reagan administration, when he was unfavorably compared to the more ideologically pure president. But with time, ideology became paramount, and the window of opportunity for a middle-of-the-road candidate narrowed, precluding Baker’s aspiration for a shot at the presidency. He didn’t want to be remembered as a failed candidate who might not even have gotten past the republican primaries.
Baker, playing second fiddle as Secretary of State, arguably had more influence and impact than G. H. W. Bush. To various degrees he shaped momentous events such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany and the campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Additionally, he managed the nearly impossible task of bringing Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs together for the first time to at least talk about peace in the Middle East.
Even after his multiple positions in government, Baker never really retired. He first went into business and became rich minting his reputation and connections. And the Bush family still required his fixer skills, most prominently in the Florida vote recount to ensure that George W. Bush prevailed over Al Gore.
The Man Who Ran Washington paints a largely positive picture of Baker but does mention his faults. Ultimately, he comes across as an immensely capable operator (and still a fixer). Baker would most likely have been a far better president than the recent Republicans the USA got.
This was a long read but an immensely compelling and informative journey and in some places even touching. One of the best books about politics I have ever read.
July 12, 2021
In the name of world peace
In the name of world profits
America pumps up our secret police
America wants fuel
To get it, it needs puppets
So what's ten million dead if it's keeping out the Russians?
The Dead Kennedys, Bleed for Me, 1982
In the 1980s, I completely agreed with the Dead Kennedys. America was a pumped-up superpower locked in an amoral fight against the Soviet Union for world supremacy. It was ruled by violent, right-wing ideologues determined to crush freedom in Latin America. Ronald Reagan’s comments on the “evil empire” could just as easily be swung around and pointed backwards. Well, one of the pleasures of growing old is that you get used to the idea of eating your words. I now have to admit that the world is a little more complicated than that. Indeed, the US often embraced questionable right-wing regimes who violated the human rights of their peoples in the name of holding off left-wing regimes that would do the same. But I don’t think that the idea of moral equivalency between the former Soviet Union and the United States holds water. Democracy versus communism: it’s an easy choice. And it’s a complicated world.
Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, the authors of this book, take on that complicated world in their biography of James Baker III, a mover, fixer, shaker and statesmen who seemed to be everywhere in the background during those times. It is a mostly favourable account of someone who was seen as a pragmatic Republican, someone for whom signatures on an agreement were more important than the details of whose ideas prevailed. Baker ran five Republican presidential campaigns and held three cabinet positions under Ronald Reagan and George Bush. During that time, as someone who regularly crossed the aisle for bipartisan support, something almost unheard of now, he made many deals that angered the more ideological parts of his party. Here’s a quote from Ronald Reagan that describes that approach, “I’d rather get 80% of what I want than go over a cliff with my flags flying.”
To briefly summarize the story. James Baker III was born into a rich Texas family in 1930 and became a part of the generation in the southern U.S. who switched from Democrat to Republican. There, the young corporate lawyer became friends with a young George Bush. His life as a corporate lawyer came to an end with the death of his first wife, which seems to have transformed him. He accepted his friend Bush’s offer to help him run for the Senate in Texas. Although Bush lost, he became the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations under President Nixon and then China under President Ford.
Bush’s coattails were long enough that Baker became Undersecretary of Commerce under Ford in 1975. Three things of note happened. Dick Cheney was Ford’s Chief of Staff and Baker and Cheney became friends and rivals for life. Cheney was of the hard right while Baker of the more mushy middle, but they were hunting buddies. Baker also got to know the President, who he impressed, and so Baker was asked to run his campaign for reelection in 1976. First, they held off a Reaganite attack on the right to get the Republican nomination, but then they lost the election against Jimmy Carter.
Two more election losses followed. In 1976, Baker lost a race for a Senate seat in Texas, and he ran George Bush’s losing campaign for the Republican nomination for President in 1980.
However, the last losing campaign was translated into success. Baker ended up running the Presidential debates for the Republican side during Reagan’s campaign against Carter, George Bush was named as Reagan’s vice-presidential nominee, and when Reagan won, Baker was named his Chief of Staff. As his Chief of Staff, Baker ran the White House and made many personnel decisions. He and Bush were moderates in a seemingly right wing government and faced many challenges from that side, but Baker was a very crafty bureaucratic infighter. He was good at giving conservatives seemingly prominent positions that actually had little power and then sidelining them with his own people in his own interest. He became known as the “Velvet Hammer,” and as a prodigious leaker to the press to get his own side of the story front and centre. He had to put in place the tax cuts, government spending cuts and military spending increases that Reagan wanted and that he had helped to label “Voodoo Economics” when he was in charge of Bush’s campaign, but he did it by compromising with Democrats to get bipartisan support. When Reagan was shot, Baker helped to cover up the extent of his injuries and kept Reagan officially in charge of the country all through his recovery. He kept the right wing from banning abortion or abolishing the Department of Education, but Oliver North and the support for the Contras in Nicaragua with financing from Iran, which later became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, happened under his nose. He allowed Nancy Reagan to control the President’s schedule through consultation with an astrologist without opposition, but at the same time, he got Sandra Day-O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court. The criticism of Baker was that he was cynical and manipulative and always out for his own interest, but he would probably say that he didn’t try to change what he couldn’t change and tried to strike a deal when he could.
Generally, the 1980s were a conservative time. Inequality soared, as the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. There was Gordon Gecko and Wall Street and crack cocaine. Just say No. At the same time, Baker’s second wife, Susan, along with Al Gore’s wife, Tipper, were founders of the Moral Majority, a conservative group that railed against rock and pop music and its corrupting influence on youth. They were successful in pushing for warning labels on records so that parents would know what their children were listening to. I hated them with a passion and still do.
When Reagan won a second term, Baker became Secretary of the Treasury. I’ll give you three of his major accomplishments. The tax code was rewritten to make it simpler and “fairer”, with bipartisan support. He negotiated with the Japanese and Europeans to lower the high American dollar to reduce the trade deficit, Finally, he personally negotiated with the Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to reach a final agreement on the free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S., which was a precursor to NAFTA. I opposed that agreement but I have since come to see it has advantages as well as disadvantages. Anyway, when Baker left as Treasury Secretary, the US economy was humming with 5.6% unemployment and 4% annual growth, even with a president who had developed Alzheimer’s disease.
Baker successfully ran George Bush’s campaign for president in 1988 against Michael Dukakis. The campaign was characterized by Republican race-baiting, particularly over the Willie Horton affair. Baker remained unapologetic.
After the campaign, George Bush made his friend James Baker the American Secretary of State. The most important thing that happened was that America won the Cold War. The Americans took a long time to respond to Soviet Perestroika and their huge cuts in their conventional and nuclear forces in Europe, but they eventually realized that Gorbachev was serious. The hawks in the administration, particularly Dick Cheney, who was Minister of Defense, argued that there could be a coup in the Soviet Union and Gorbachev could be replaced by a hardliner, so the Americans should take maximum advantage of the situation. He was partially correct in the short and long term, but the mutual arms reductions and relaxation of tension were a great victory for the world. Baker became good friends with Eduard Shevardnadze, the Soviet Foreign Minister. Germany was reunified, despite the fears of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and with the blessing of the Soviet government.
Then there was the first Gulf War. Iraq invaded and occupied its rich neighbor, Kuwait, taking control of its oil fields. When the Americans prepared to go to war to reclaim Kuwait, Baker went on a world tour to get support. He got America’s allies to mostly pay for it, he got the Russians to agree to it, and he kept the Israelis out of it. When the Americans and their allies routed the Iraqi forces, hawks in the American government (Dick Cheney) urged Bush to go to Baghdad and overthrow the Iraqi government. The decision to stop at the border seems prescient now. Baker made lots of friends in the Gulf region and remains a legend there.
In 1989, when the Chinese Communist government crushed a democracy uprising in Tiananmen Square, with hundreds or thousands of casualties, Bush and Baker counselled caution. They warned the Chinese generally, but also generally chose pragmatic relations over democracy. Congress wanted sanctions, but Baker and Bush avoided them.
Baker again ran Bush’s presidential campaign in 1992 against Bill Clinton, and they lost. Out of power, Baker joined several corporate boards to cash in, including the Carlyle Group. He thought about running for president himself, but didn’t.
When George Bush the younger ran for president in 2000, Baker was not invited to participate. However, when the election ran into trouble in Florida, Baker was called in to run the recount team for the Republicans. The outcome of the national presidential election depended on about one thousand votes in Florida, Baker did everything he could to bring in the results for Bush junior, and he delivered. Much has been written about this episode as a shameful episode of partisanship, or a situation rigged by Jeb Bush, George’s brother, who was the Republican governor of Florida. I’m not Republican or Democrat: I am a Canadian, and as such, all I can say is that the method that the Americans use to run their elections is chaotic, unpredictable, unfair, and desperately in need of being regularized and updated.
Then came 9/11 and Dick Cheney, Baker’s old friend, was now vice-president and Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense. Baker’s voice was nowhere to council moderation. He wrote a kind of weak op-ed saying that better conditions for the invasion of Iraq needed to be met, but was ignored. Disaster ensued. By 2006, the situation in Iraq was so bad that he was asked to lead the Iraq Study group, a bipartisan committee to look into the Iraq War. A committee of elder statesmen, their voices were mostly ignored. Now he was a has-been.
The authors present Baker as a fixer and a statesman who wants to be remembered as a statesman. He ran five presidential campaigns and held three cabinet-level positions. He was a skilled bureaucratic infighter and a generally moderate voice in a Republican Party that seems to have become even more extreme since then. He represented a vanishing middle in American politics. He said that you can consider that you have had a successful Washington career if you leave unindicted, and he did that. He played hardball domestically, smearing Willie Horton and stickhandling a perhaps-rigged Florida vote count to win the presidency. He could also be gracious in victory, leaving the Russians room to maneuver and avoiding the trap of an Iraq invasion. Ultimately, he was a pragmatic part of an ideological team of people who moved America to the right and have arguably been the most influential voices of the past forty years. Personally, I think a lot of it has been for the worse: the rich have become richer and the poor have become more marginalized. It looks like democracy in the United States may be genuinely under threat from the extremes of the left and right alike. I hope that the United States can find more politicians interested in finding consensus and reaching across political divides to do what’s best for the country.
In the name of world profits
America pumps up our secret police
America wants fuel
To get it, it needs puppets
So what's ten million dead if it's keeping out the Russians?
The Dead Kennedys, Bleed for Me, 1982
In the 1980s, I completely agreed with the Dead Kennedys. America was a pumped-up superpower locked in an amoral fight against the Soviet Union for world supremacy. It was ruled by violent, right-wing ideologues determined to crush freedom in Latin America. Ronald Reagan’s comments on the “evil empire” could just as easily be swung around and pointed backwards. Well, one of the pleasures of growing old is that you get used to the idea of eating your words. I now have to admit that the world is a little more complicated than that. Indeed, the US often embraced questionable right-wing regimes who violated the human rights of their peoples in the name of holding off left-wing regimes that would do the same. But I don’t think that the idea of moral equivalency between the former Soviet Union and the United States holds water. Democracy versus communism: it’s an easy choice. And it’s a complicated world.
Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, the authors of this book, take on that complicated world in their biography of James Baker III, a mover, fixer, shaker and statesmen who seemed to be everywhere in the background during those times. It is a mostly favourable account of someone who was seen as a pragmatic Republican, someone for whom signatures on an agreement were more important than the details of whose ideas prevailed. Baker ran five Republican presidential campaigns and held three cabinet positions under Ronald Reagan and George Bush. During that time, as someone who regularly crossed the aisle for bipartisan support, something almost unheard of now, he made many deals that angered the more ideological parts of his party. Here’s a quote from Ronald Reagan that describes that approach, “I’d rather get 80% of what I want than go over a cliff with my flags flying.”
To briefly summarize the story. James Baker III was born into a rich Texas family in 1930 and became a part of the generation in the southern U.S. who switched from Democrat to Republican. There, the young corporate lawyer became friends with a young George Bush. His life as a corporate lawyer came to an end with the death of his first wife, which seems to have transformed him. He accepted his friend Bush’s offer to help him run for the Senate in Texas. Although Bush lost, he became the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations under President Nixon and then China under President Ford.
Bush’s coattails were long enough that Baker became Undersecretary of Commerce under Ford in 1975. Three things of note happened. Dick Cheney was Ford’s Chief of Staff and Baker and Cheney became friends and rivals for life. Cheney was of the hard right while Baker of the more mushy middle, but they were hunting buddies. Baker also got to know the President, who he impressed, and so Baker was asked to run his campaign for reelection in 1976. First, they held off a Reaganite attack on the right to get the Republican nomination, but then they lost the election against Jimmy Carter.
Two more election losses followed. In 1976, Baker lost a race for a Senate seat in Texas, and he ran George Bush’s losing campaign for the Republican nomination for President in 1980.
However, the last losing campaign was translated into success. Baker ended up running the Presidential debates for the Republican side during Reagan’s campaign against Carter, George Bush was named as Reagan’s vice-presidential nominee, and when Reagan won, Baker was named his Chief of Staff. As his Chief of Staff, Baker ran the White House and made many personnel decisions. He and Bush were moderates in a seemingly right wing government and faced many challenges from that side, but Baker was a very crafty bureaucratic infighter. He was good at giving conservatives seemingly prominent positions that actually had little power and then sidelining them with his own people in his own interest. He became known as the “Velvet Hammer,” and as a prodigious leaker to the press to get his own side of the story front and centre. He had to put in place the tax cuts, government spending cuts and military spending increases that Reagan wanted and that he had helped to label “Voodoo Economics” when he was in charge of Bush’s campaign, but he did it by compromising with Democrats to get bipartisan support. When Reagan was shot, Baker helped to cover up the extent of his injuries and kept Reagan officially in charge of the country all through his recovery. He kept the right wing from banning abortion or abolishing the Department of Education, but Oliver North and the support for the Contras in Nicaragua with financing from Iran, which later became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, happened under his nose. He allowed Nancy Reagan to control the President’s schedule through consultation with an astrologist without opposition, but at the same time, he got Sandra Day-O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court. The criticism of Baker was that he was cynical and manipulative and always out for his own interest, but he would probably say that he didn’t try to change what he couldn’t change and tried to strike a deal when he could.
Generally, the 1980s were a conservative time. Inequality soared, as the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. There was Gordon Gecko and Wall Street and crack cocaine. Just say No. At the same time, Baker’s second wife, Susan, along with Al Gore’s wife, Tipper, were founders of the Moral Majority, a conservative group that railed against rock and pop music and its corrupting influence on youth. They were successful in pushing for warning labels on records so that parents would know what their children were listening to. I hated them with a passion and still do.
When Reagan won a second term, Baker became Secretary of the Treasury. I’ll give you three of his major accomplishments. The tax code was rewritten to make it simpler and “fairer”, with bipartisan support. He negotiated with the Japanese and Europeans to lower the high American dollar to reduce the trade deficit, Finally, he personally negotiated with the Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to reach a final agreement on the free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S., which was a precursor to NAFTA. I opposed that agreement but I have since come to see it has advantages as well as disadvantages. Anyway, when Baker left as Treasury Secretary, the US economy was humming with 5.6% unemployment and 4% annual growth, even with a president who had developed Alzheimer’s disease.
Baker successfully ran George Bush’s campaign for president in 1988 against Michael Dukakis. The campaign was characterized by Republican race-baiting, particularly over the Willie Horton affair. Baker remained unapologetic.
After the campaign, George Bush made his friend James Baker the American Secretary of State. The most important thing that happened was that America won the Cold War. The Americans took a long time to respond to Soviet Perestroika and their huge cuts in their conventional and nuclear forces in Europe, but they eventually realized that Gorbachev was serious. The hawks in the administration, particularly Dick Cheney, who was Minister of Defense, argued that there could be a coup in the Soviet Union and Gorbachev could be replaced by a hardliner, so the Americans should take maximum advantage of the situation. He was partially correct in the short and long term, but the mutual arms reductions and relaxation of tension were a great victory for the world. Baker became good friends with Eduard Shevardnadze, the Soviet Foreign Minister. Germany was reunified, despite the fears of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and with the blessing of the Soviet government.
Then there was the first Gulf War. Iraq invaded and occupied its rich neighbor, Kuwait, taking control of its oil fields. When the Americans prepared to go to war to reclaim Kuwait, Baker went on a world tour to get support. He got America’s allies to mostly pay for it, he got the Russians to agree to it, and he kept the Israelis out of it. When the Americans and their allies routed the Iraqi forces, hawks in the American government (Dick Cheney) urged Bush to go to Baghdad and overthrow the Iraqi government. The decision to stop at the border seems prescient now. Baker made lots of friends in the Gulf region and remains a legend there.
In 1989, when the Chinese Communist government crushed a democracy uprising in Tiananmen Square, with hundreds or thousands of casualties, Bush and Baker counselled caution. They warned the Chinese generally, but also generally chose pragmatic relations over democracy. Congress wanted sanctions, but Baker and Bush avoided them.
Baker again ran Bush’s presidential campaign in 1992 against Bill Clinton, and they lost. Out of power, Baker joined several corporate boards to cash in, including the Carlyle Group. He thought about running for president himself, but didn’t.
When George Bush the younger ran for president in 2000, Baker was not invited to participate. However, when the election ran into trouble in Florida, Baker was called in to run the recount team for the Republicans. The outcome of the national presidential election depended on about one thousand votes in Florida, Baker did everything he could to bring in the results for Bush junior, and he delivered. Much has been written about this episode as a shameful episode of partisanship, or a situation rigged by Jeb Bush, George’s brother, who was the Republican governor of Florida. I’m not Republican or Democrat: I am a Canadian, and as such, all I can say is that the method that the Americans use to run their elections is chaotic, unpredictable, unfair, and desperately in need of being regularized and updated.
Then came 9/11 and Dick Cheney, Baker’s old friend, was now vice-president and Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense. Baker’s voice was nowhere to council moderation. He wrote a kind of weak op-ed saying that better conditions for the invasion of Iraq needed to be met, but was ignored. Disaster ensued. By 2006, the situation in Iraq was so bad that he was asked to lead the Iraq Study group, a bipartisan committee to look into the Iraq War. A committee of elder statesmen, their voices were mostly ignored. Now he was a has-been.
The authors present Baker as a fixer and a statesman who wants to be remembered as a statesman. He ran five presidential campaigns and held three cabinet-level positions. He was a skilled bureaucratic infighter and a generally moderate voice in a Republican Party that seems to have become even more extreme since then. He represented a vanishing middle in American politics. He said that you can consider that you have had a successful Washington career if you leave unindicted, and he did that. He played hardball domestically, smearing Willie Horton and stickhandling a perhaps-rigged Florida vote count to win the presidency. He could also be gracious in victory, leaving the Russians room to maneuver and avoiding the trap of an Iraq invasion. Ultimately, he was a pragmatic part of an ideological team of people who moved America to the right and have arguably been the most influential voices of the past forty years. Personally, I think a lot of it has been for the worse: the rich have become richer and the poor have become more marginalized. It looks like democracy in the United States may be genuinely under threat from the extremes of the left and right alike. I hope that the United States can find more politicians interested in finding consensus and reaching across political divides to do what’s best for the country.
November 7, 2020
Well written biography of James Baker, a very important Republican in recent American history. He worked fir the first Bush administration as well as Ford and Reagan. The book details his work in each administration and accomplishments and failures. The admiration of him stems from his work ethic, organizational skills and ability to get things done. He especially emphasizes his opposition to Reagan at first then his admiration in Reagan’s work in collapsing the Soviet Union, finished under Bush. He was there for the Gulf War and beginning of the Iraq War. He once caused trouble with Israel after it was alleged that he referred to them as dirty Jews. He wanted to be president but it didn’t happen. What really bothered me from beginning to end was the wealth he and other Republicans had and their lack of any contact with other people. and he book also completely ignores Americans or people who live here. It is all about Baker and Republicans dealing with other wealthy people and heads of state of other countries. Baker’s family were plantation owners who moved after land in Alabama was over-farmed and he brought his household to Texas. They were elite and quite wealthy. When one man from another family died in NYC, his ancestor alleged the man was murdered by a man who chloroformed him. The man was given the death penalty, later life and then pardoned. It was widely believed Baker’s ancestor as the lawyer made it up. James Baker lived in privilege and his only contact with African Americans were as servants. As his life continued he attended elite colleges but did do well. It doesn’t seem that serving the people except for elite didn’t even cut to him nor to the others. I read this book to get a better glimpse at Republicans considered to be nice guys. Maybe I’d think James Baker was a nice guy, but I don’t think so. He helped rewrite the tax code for the rich under Reagan to bring it down from 72 percent once to 38 percent. He helped make the deficit so high from tax cuts that Bush lost the election. He was involved in Iran Contra and Bill Barr. He supported the pardons. I don’t like James Baker.
November 1, 2020
Fascinating book
Fascinating book about a statesman/politician I had not known about who made significant contributions in the Reagan and Bush administrations.
Fascinating book about a statesman/politician I had not known about who made significant contributions in the Reagan and Bush administrations.
December 28, 2021
A very good book. Much like the recent biography of Sandra Day O'Connor I also read, the ascent of Baker from post-college career to his first big Washington job seems lacking in any detail, like he graduated college an turned 44 the next day. It was like, he was a lawyer, he was his friend's campaign manager, he also ran for office and lost and then he was the campaign manager for Gerald Ford's '76 bid (wait, what?)? What was VERY clear was that once he was in Washington, he definitely shaped the landscape. His friendship with the Bush family (and especially Bush '41) at times felt dysfunctional. The book chalks it up to friendly competition but to me it was weird, not to mention a textbook example of co-dependency.
Baker comes off as brilliant and quite the operator (and I guess a statesman) but not really all that likeable (understatement). There are constant digs about how he shows up big when all lands well but shrinks when things are not and that he always lands on his feet (and then some) when all those around fall by the wayside. There are a handful of funny anecdotes and lots of good detail but in the end he kind of comes off as a creep so much so that I'm not sure I even respect him, other than for his ability to manage a situation and bring order to chaos. Ultimately, I guess it all depends on who's 'order' you prefer (Republican or Democrat).
The whole Bush/Gore election assist was interesting given post 9-11 and Iraq (Part 2), and there seems to be at least of little bit of Lady Macbeth's bloody hands syndrome going around within the 2nd term of W's presidency. The book isn't too lionizing but definitely pays more tribute than scorn (the title is an indication) but there's a fair amount of baggage left behind when all is said and done for the reader to assess the person. And oh by the way, Washington DC is such a cesspool that in the end (and excuse my French but) who the fuck would what be known as 'the man who ran' it for the last quarter of the 20th century?
Overall, I'm going to designate this a favorite book not because the subject of it but because how well the book is written to show and try to balance the means and the ends and the man from his accomplishments. No small feat for sure but nevertheless well, well done, indeed!
Baker comes off as brilliant and quite the operator (and I guess a statesman) but not really all that likeable (understatement). There are constant digs about how he shows up big when all lands well but shrinks when things are not and that he always lands on his feet (and then some) when all those around fall by the wayside. There are a handful of funny anecdotes and lots of good detail but in the end he kind of comes off as a creep so much so that I'm not sure I even respect him, other than for his ability to manage a situation and bring order to chaos. Ultimately, I guess it all depends on who's 'order' you prefer (Republican or Democrat).
The whole Bush/Gore election assist was interesting given post 9-11 and Iraq (Part 2), and there seems to be at least of little bit of Lady Macbeth's bloody hands syndrome going around within the 2nd term of W's presidency. The book isn't too lionizing but definitely pays more tribute than scorn (the title is an indication) but there's a fair amount of baggage left behind when all is said and done for the reader to assess the person. And oh by the way, Washington DC is such a cesspool that in the end (and excuse my French but) who the fuck would what be known as 'the man who ran' it for the last quarter of the 20th century?
Overall, I'm going to designate this a favorite book not because the subject of it but because how well the book is written to show and try to balance the means and the ends and the man from his accomplishments. No small feat for sure but nevertheless well, well done, indeed!
September 25, 2021
The authors deserve credit for propelling the book forward and keeping it enjoyable with the pure strength of narrative (quotes help!) and strong research. The public life of James A. Baker as a protagonist is as dry and high it gets, starting high, staying high and ending high: born to a highly prestigious Houston family, legacy-propelled IVY league education and early career as a lawyer in a family-owned large law firm, country-club friendship with the Bushes and easily networked entrance into the public life, running of four presidential election campaigns and serving as the White House Chief of Staff and Treasury Secretary for multiple presidents; for Baker, becoming the Treasury Secretary was as easy as swapping his Chief of Staff role with his "friend" who held the position, as both needed a new challenge and a change, with an easy approval from Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
The book balances itself well on the thin line between being a tribute to a successful political figure and a subtle criticism for a past power. While remaining moderately favorable as is courteous for a book of this nature, it aptly focuses more on describing the inner workings of the Republican White Houses of Nixon, Reagan and the two Bushes, less on telling a teaching self-helpish success story that readers came to expect from recent biographies. Intended or not, this book also serves up such perfect examples of WASP male privileges that if anyone had any doubt America in 1900's was run by rich white men, I'd point to this book as my evidence that it was so.
The book balances itself well on the thin line between being a tribute to a successful political figure and a subtle criticism for a past power. While remaining moderately favorable as is courteous for a book of this nature, it aptly focuses more on describing the inner workings of the Republican White Houses of Nixon, Reagan and the two Bushes, less on telling a teaching self-helpish success story that readers came to expect from recent biographies. Intended or not, this book also serves up such perfect examples of WASP male privileges that if anyone had any doubt America in 1900's was run by rich white men, I'd point to this book as my evidence that it was so.
December 26, 2020
This is a highly readable biography of one of the most powerful unelected officials in American history. James Baker was Commerce Secretary, Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State. He ran 5 Presidential campaigns and he was Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan when he first entered the White House. Not only did he hold these positions but he participated in, and occasionally drove, epochal events in American and World history. From the passage of the ground breaking 1986 tax reform bill, to the dissolution of the Soviet Empire; from the cobbling together of the Gulf War Coalition to the 1988 Presidential Campaign Jim Baker was at the center of it.
This book does an excellent job of researching the Baker family history and the early life of James Baker. It does an excellent job of cataloging his accomplishments, and with regard to those in foreign policy, it goes to great lengths to contextualize them. It also discusses his connections and relationships to Reagan and the Bush families. Baker's critics sometimes belittle him as simply being in the right place at the right time, but as this book demonstrates the reason he was in that place is always because someone put him there, usually because he had proven himself capable elsewhere.
If the book has a shortcoming is that is very much focuses on the what rather than the how and the why. It says Baker was smart, prepared, backed by a loyal group etc but this is true of almost everyone in Washington. There was very clearly something different about Baker intrinsically. What that was is hard to determine, he comes across as a typical power brokers only moreso. This might have been intentional, but I would have loved to have known why he was chosen as opposed to others. His personal relationship with Bush was why he was so successful at State, but what made Reagan choose his primary opponents campaign manager as his Chief of Staff over his own people? It's hard to say, and I would have liked to know.
This book does an excellent job of researching the Baker family history and the early life of James Baker. It does an excellent job of cataloging his accomplishments, and with regard to those in foreign policy, it goes to great lengths to contextualize them. It also discusses his connections and relationships to Reagan and the Bush families. Baker's critics sometimes belittle him as simply being in the right place at the right time, but as this book demonstrates the reason he was in that place is always because someone put him there, usually because he had proven himself capable elsewhere.
If the book has a shortcoming is that is very much focuses on the what rather than the how and the why. It says Baker was smart, prepared, backed by a loyal group etc but this is true of almost everyone in Washington. There was very clearly something different about Baker intrinsically. What that was is hard to determine, he comes across as a typical power brokers only moreso. This might have been intentional, but I would have loved to have known why he was chosen as opposed to others. His personal relationship with Bush was why he was so successful at State, but what made Reagan choose his primary opponents campaign manager as his Chief of Staff over his own people? It's hard to say, and I would have liked to know.
October 3, 2020
Political and Global Analysts, Journalists Peter Baker and Susan Glasser who are married write an interesting and encompassing biography in The Man Who Ran Washington; The Life and Times of James A. Baker III (pp. 694). Complete with pictures and index. Baker's name has always been affiliated with the Republican party even though he was formerly a Democrat. The reason I wanted to read it was to learn how Baker-an attorney- used his formidable negotiating skills to influence policy under more than one administration. It seems clear his success can be attributed to determination, consistency and confidence. Much of his work the majority of Americans probably don't know or remember. He rewrote the tax code. A daunting accomplishment alone especially with little experience in the matter. As a life long loyal friend to the Bush family he was instrumental in making sure the Supreme Court did not order a recount in the Bush/Gore election. He traveled overseas brokering the lowering of the Iraq debt. Of course, Baker benefited financially from his friendship with the Bush family. It's called the Carlyle Group. My favorite line. Even though Baker doesn't like Trump he still voted for him because as he says a conservative in the Oval office is better than a liberal. Even if that person is crazy. I think we are seeing what a terrible mistake that is with over 200,000 dead from a pandemic and ZERO leadership.
May 10, 2021
I have so very many thoughts on this book. If you are a political junkie who loves to read about “how the sausage is made,” you should read this book. If you want to see the formation and evolution of the various important strands of political thought that have ultimately gotten us to the not-so-good political situation we face today, you should read this book.
After reading this book, I can now understand why some people say you can draw a straight line from the Reagan Revolution to MAGA. I believe the path meanders a whole lot more than those people say it does, but at least I now understand that line of reasoning. As someone who grew up in the eighties and nineties, this book helped tie together a lot of the events I lived through, and it now makes a lot more sense to me. I now regret having liked Ross Perot’s politics so much as a teenager, but I also understand why he was so popular, and I still like him for a number of non-political reasons (read On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett).
In short, this is a fascinating read, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in any of the topics touched on in the previous two paragraphs.
After reading this book, I can now understand why some people say you can draw a straight line from the Reagan Revolution to MAGA. I believe the path meanders a whole lot more than those people say it does, but at least I now understand that line of reasoning. As someone who grew up in the eighties and nineties, this book helped tie together a lot of the events I lived through, and it now makes a lot more sense to me. I now regret having liked Ross Perot’s politics so much as a teenager, but I also understand why he was so popular, and I still like him for a number of non-political reasons (read On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett).
In short, this is a fascinating read, and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in any of the topics touched on in the previous two paragraphs.
Read
December 15, 2020Not much. The book glosses over the man and the times largely I think because, contrary to what I initially thought, Baker is basically an opportunist who made use of his close friendship with Bush Senior . While I empathize with the personal tragedies in his life , his career always came first and while its not really explored much out of respect for the living, I think his family suffered as a consequence. I was initially drawn to this book because he wasn't a naive idealogue, but I began halfway through, to see Baker as just a good manager and nothing more. Some vision is better than none.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 310 reviews