The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III

Peter Baker has written books on Presidents Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama and contributed to oneon the history of impeachment. He covers Trump for the NY Times along with Maggie Habermanand others, and is generally fair. His wife Susan Glasser founded Politico, probably the most importantof the new online journals, and now is with the New Yorker. The New Yorker is very liberal and generallynot a fan of President Trump under David Remnick. They do TV separately with MSNBC and CNN.Jim Baker, no relation, was the first secretary of state that I knew. So it was surprising for me tolearn that foreign policy was not his specialty (it was that of Bush 43, who had served in themilitary, UN, CIA etc.). He was not a specialist in languages, but was street smart and could readbody language and emotions. This was in contrast with Kissinger and Nixon, who were very booksmart. The authors interviewed Baker a lot, but this is not an authorized biography because hedidn't review the finished product. They also relied a lot upon Margaret Tutwiler.Baker's friendship with Bush Sr. went way back, decades before they became prominent politicians.Beginning in the 70s, we are introduced to the GOP establishment with figures like Gerald Ford,Bob Dole, Al Haig, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Baker campaigned against Reagan twice, forFord in 1976 and Bush in '80. But when Reagan won, he became the chief of staff and part of the"troika" with Deaver and Regan, eventually becoming the most influential of the competing factions.As a figure of the establishment, he emphasized getting things done, and contributed to Reagan'sworking with Speaker Tip O'Neill, who was as liberal as the Gipper was conservative. He knew thepolitical history of LBJ when he was a Senate leader working with Eisenhower, and then Sen. EverettDirksen doing the same with LBJ. Baker was not trusted by the more ideological Reaganites, butwas affirmed by Reagan as a true Reaganite at the end of his service. Later in the Reagan administrations,Baker served as Treasury secretary, and so the book's emphasis moves to economic issues, taxes andthe stock market, along with Iran-Contra.Baker was a strong partisan, but in multiple directions-against the Democrats but also the moreconservative Republicans, such as Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich and Jack Kemp, who had an infectiousintellectual passion unbounded by his field of responsibility. On the international level, MaggieThatcher generally pulled Reagan and Bush Sr. toward more hardline views. This is understandable-with Germany's reunification, it was only a few decades after the attacks on Britain. As Bush'ssecretary of state, the book turns to the all-important end of the Cold War on all its levelswith Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The election of 88 brings the "Read My Lips" speech written by PeggyNoonan (along with 1000 points of light and kinder gentler), Lee Atwater and Willie Horton.As a kid I often heard about "Reagan and Bush" but they were two very different men withdifferent strengths and weaknesses.It's a fascinating book as the different eras bring up the names of the various politicians and journalistswho were part of the scenery. In the 2000 election with the Florida recount, Baker negotiated withWarren Christopher, his successor as Secretary of State for Bill Clinton. Another thing I learned wasthat Dick Cheney, while one of the hawks for the first Gulf War, was not as rigid as he was in his laterdays. This would be an interesting thing to explore. The authors also have great respect for CondiRice throughout her career.In the Obama era, Baker lamented the loss of the solid center. With Trump's defeat of Jeb, most ofthe Bush clan were very anti-Trump. Baker remained a loyal Republican through all the differentiterations, and was not a never-Trumper in 2016. But as 2020 came along he finally followed hisgrandfather's advice and stayed away from politics! The saga continues with Trump's covid hospitalizationand this week's contentious debate.

Peter Baker and Susan Glasser have written a top-notch biography of James Baker. The book is exceptionally well researched, very well written, and very readable.One potential issue is the respect the authors seem to have for James Baker. However, I don't think the bias (if any) is particularly significant. It's clear that James Baker was talented and influential, but he wasn't perfect.The notes are primarily for sourcing purposes, but thorough details are provided when appropriate. There's also a fine bibliography.

This isn't really a book about how great a person was or wasn't. It's more about how Baker's leadership and pragmatism shaped or current geo-political reality.

This book provides a good overview of the life and times of James Baker, probably the key figure of the 12-year Reagan-Bush era that lasted from 1981 to 1993. Baker held three main roles through this period: first, White House Chief of Staff for Reagan, then Secretary of the Treasury for Reagan, then Secretary of State for Bush -- all in truly tumultuous times. The book covers the times and Baker's involvement well, and I recommend it for anyone interested in the period. What I found missing was greater insight into how Baker pulled it off: how did someone rise so fast and perform so well in such a variety of jobs? The short prologue probably tries to address these questions as much as any other part of the book, and suggests that it was his exceptional work ethic ("prior preparation prevents poor performance") and dealmaking skill. But those are abstract qualities, and I wish the book had done more to illuminate ways in which he implemented them in practice. It is remarkable that, after having led Ford's campaign against Reagan in 1976, and then Bush's campaign against Reagan in 1980, he wound up as Reagan's Chief of Staff and right-hand man without betraying Bush. It is also remarkable that he not only survived but thrived for so long in a town that likes to chew people up and spit them out. The book notes many of his tactics (e.g., courting the press and targeted leaking), but I didn't feel by the end that it really gave me a sense of how Baker pulled it off. So, all in all, a worthwhile read but something missing at the core.

Well, researched and written

My one criticism of the book as a physical item: soon before finishing it the spine broke. For such an elegant volume, I am surprised that the pages are glued, rather than stitched. Suddenly an entire section of the book came loose.That said, I found this to be a remarkable journey through the life and work of a remarkable man. I found the section on Baker's involvement with the end of the Soviet Union to be particularly compelling. And we do see the Texas personality at work, from start to finish.The book hearkens back to a time of statecraft and seriousness of purpose, something lacking in the US government for a long time, in my opinion. Yes, this volume makes clear the ongoing phenomemon of political expediency in making foreign policy and domestic decisions, but there also appears numerous examples of the State Department and the current admnistration in general truly wrestling with matters of significance, and doing so significantly, and not simply with eyes on the 24-hour news cycle. Granted, there was no full-blown news cycle of this nature earlier on in Baker's career.Quite a few years ago I had the privilege of visiting the Baker Institute at Rice University. Now I would like to go back.To those who have read it, have you been able to decode/decipher the strange typo/editorial error on page 560: "I don't think anybody else could have done this," said F dson"?

Superbly written book.

A real Republican!

A real inside look at Washington's ultimate "insider"! Takes one right into the workings, both good and bad, of the Oval Office. Jim Bakes is a very exceptional guy!!

For anyone who lived and worked in bakers time it’s a great history well written

Impecável . Um Estadista da mais alta qualidade .Homem da confiança dos Presidentes Reagan & George H W Bush .