Whose book just out this fall the man who ran washington the life and times of james baker the third. Of two brilliant books about it too complicated and fascinating men. They were born a decade apart. Baker in houston in 1930 and holbrook 1941 holbrook a democrat, student of Foreign Policy. Their lives had different trajectories but they both ended up in washington. Picking up on that, this is a man with great ambition and even before he came to washington. He was expected to do great things. He had a very dominating father who imparted on him the legacy of his family. One thing they were not meant to do his politics. They break away from his fathers domination and at age 40 he suffers a great family tragedy. His wife dies of cancer and the tennis court helps pick him up from the George Hw Bush on a whole different odyssey that put them in the center of world events. Host george im going to be going back and forth because the stories of the books are so rich we could go so many Different Directions but i want to try to weave these together. George packard, i use the word complicated and it doesnt begin to do justice. Why didnt you want to write about him and talk about his ambition. What drove him and the fact of the First Quarter of the book is about vietnam. So he died in december, 2010 which was a fitting finale and characteristic of him. A few weeks later his widow offered me his personal papers. I thought i have a chance to explore a flamboyant, mesmerizing character whose career covered half a century from kennedy to obama, from vietnam and afghanistan through an intimate look at his diary and letters and other papers. So i said yes without quite knowing why i said yes. Holbrook as soon i began to read the letters, as you said he begins his career in south vietnam, actually in the delta when the war was at its hottest in 1963. And as soon as possible began reading his letters, i knew i made the right choice because he was such a good writer and so intelligent and observant and funny and arrogant and adjust a guy that could fill a book and maybe more. So it was a kind of engine that was there from the very start and got him into very high places and lead to some triumphs and also in the end cost him a very good deal, friendships and maybe his own desire to rise to the top of his field but he never got there partly because people found him to be too difficult and abrasive and he could never keep it in check. Host what term. Talk about jim baker. He ran the campaign against Ronald Reagan for George Hw Bush and Ronald Reagan chose him to be his white house chief of staff and he was seen as probably the most successful person at that job of the modern times. How did he do it . He didnt have a background that was would successfully woe successful. He ran the campaign in 1976 coming from nowhere in the wreckage after. The Previous Group had been sent off to jail and a whole generation that kind of came to the floor. In his case, an example of an outsider coming into washington but he wanted to get things do done. Not just one, but two campaigns against him and ended up being as you said a smart choice on his part. Host he was on the course to become treasury secretary and pulled off this bipartisan tax plan which as we know we havent seen the likes of edisons likes of it since. What pulled it all together . s gimmick this is a question everybody asked. He would give this and tell you my family has preparation and we all know pretty well washington is a city full of ambitious lawyers who do their homework and stay up late. Its true jim baker was assiduous to the point of obsessive when it came to getting the job done. From every member of congress this was the pre internet era but there are plenty of people that are extremely well prepared and that is one aspect of it but i think that we found in working on the book success was the only option. The hyper competitiveness is what they had in common and there are stories how they came to be teamed up, but one simple answer jim baker pointing to the wall before george w. Bush showed up for the past few years it was james baker the third and george bush wanted to be teamed up with a winner. Theres no question about that. Jim bakers father exhibited at this, and his family in general, this overweening power over his early years and it shaped him as a person. His dad literally beat this kind of competitiveness and to him. Jim baker would go and play tennis matches. Both had a certain insecurity. He never could have done it while his dad was still around and alive. How would it take on his world as a diplomat and how did he come to find that with getting things done in washington. Theriot holbrook played a ton of tennis, and i have a feeling that he rose up through the hierarchy and signed on and then in washington by Winning People on the tennis court to be so competitive they had to respect him. First there was anthony, his close friend, and peter a Foreign Service in saigon and they remained friends and their friendship mysteriously disintegrated with great consequences for them and the u. S. Foreign policy. Then eventually got to Bobby Kennedy of washington. This is a maneuver in order to be invited to the best dinner tables in georgetown, the first he revered the postwar generation of americanstatesman the problem was he was a very different man. He wasnt born to the his doctor c. Even the uncouth nest that kept getting in the way of the way for him to push on the people signing and getting ahead. At the times change and at the establishment was in part they could simply be called upon so holbrook was forever trying to get to the top of a mountain. He loved mountain climbing stories and falling short of the summit. He got to the highest base camp imaginable. He wasnt Henry Kissinger and he was more of an operative. He got things done especially in bosnia for example. At times change in holbrook wasnt cut out to rise to the top. He wasnt self disciplined like baker and as susan said, he was undisciplined. He was playing people when they sell right through him and in the end, the relationship that failed him was barack obama and he wanted to work closely with him to be trusted by him i would add on the parallel between the two, they both were relentless and distinctive. A. Looking for places they knew of each other. Looking at the period of the balkans he was there in the administration of the end of the cold war. He said Something Like we dont have a dog in that fight and then later it became the place of Richard Holbrooks greatest triumph. It is a place but it may be a way to look at what lend itself to Richard Holbrooks strengths and weaknesses. His view of the Foreign Policy, he saw a hopeless ancient struggle that we could never understand and had no business getting involved in to get in touch with milosevic and others in the war. Bill clinton inherited and a terrible stage in bosnia. It isnt bakers finest hour and it shows something about the limits of his realism. He had a passionate sense that america had to be involved in the bosnias of the world and if he left that country plead, it would eventually become our problem and possibly rupture the Transatlantic Alliance. We did actually have a dog in that fight. But once he committed himself in a way that showed he did care about other countries and people and places whose names we cant pronounce or suffering in civil war and refugees, this is something that characterized him throughout his career. And as well as very postwar that america had to lead and so he wasnt going to stop until he had a deal and knew what bosnia brought out in him. Of the qualitiethe qualities din other places. Listening to you im thinking how they went back to the end of your book and another period in writing the book he wanted to take out references to there was a lien about maybe we could have stayed and clearly suggesting the mistakes were made. He was a pragmatist and he wasnt all about imposing a freedom agenda. Its about where he saw the deal was possible that he was going to jump on it. At the beginning he wasnt interested at all. There was no deal there and he understood he had to focus on the priorities and its why some of the career diplomats were suspicious of him. He wasnt going to focus on the rest so he went looking for the deal and that is the key to understanding the Foreign Policy worldview. More than even a kind of centrism or idea that he was a rigid, he was willing to assert power in the world but nobody knew without power would be. In 1989 to 1991. How did he maneuver . He wouldnt have been as masterful as the dissolution of the soviet union. In a weird way he never showed much interest in the Foreign Policy issue of his life it was to abstract, nuclear arms talks. His intensity and attention were always directed towards Different Countries where there was conflict and where there was a suffering. Vietnam, bosnia, afghanistan. Once the cold war ended and he saw the opportunity for democrats to reenter the Foreign Policy by thinking we needed to get out is the position that he ended up in so he was always looking over his shoulder and once the cold war ended, the pressure was off and i think that he had an outside idea he wanted to be involved not just in bills nina but in congo certainly as a allpurpose negotiator in the horn of africa so in a way he is more of a kissinger figure that had a larger view of what was possible and what was not as the geopolitics to try to solve a particular problem i think in this era he was at his most successful and got himself into some troubles. There was one line i wrote down about baker. In the end writing about how much he wanted to be seen as a diplomat and again working on the book that im quoting he was after all a fixer no matter how much he tried to break out of the straitjacket but shaped the world events. Gets in the sense that they took them on. He was unsentimental. He would never have thought but he didnt have a great world strategy. He was in the end a lawyer and operative. At the great downfall of his life the thing that crushed him the most is when he had been the secretary of state for three and a half years and negotiated the peace talks and brought the coalition together to the gulf war and his friend george bush calls him back. He couldnt stand the idea of the great issues of the day and in fact through the fall they said why arent you demanding anything. They thought she was trying to avoid blame to cause a rift between baker and the family that took years to resolve. Its o the thing he could not escape. We waited around for months for baker to get into the campaign. The problems they were having. There were larger than life falls. What kept him from realizing he wanted to be secretary of state. You mentioned what happened between him and president obama. What was it about him . It came down to Richard Holbrook and Madeleine Albright and clinton mos was bleeding tos holbrook because he said he is brilliant, relentless and Hillary Clinton way it indecisively, but in the end clinton said to al gore i dont think that holbrook has the selfawareness from becoming toxic. That was his shrewd analysis of the character. He understood the person across the table brilliantly, whether it was Slobodan Milosevic or bill clinton. He didnt know himself very well. He couldnt laugh out himself or see himself as others were seeing him. It was a kind of lifelong blindness to his own flaws and character that i think was a fatal flaw and it meant he could negotiate wit when there was an obstacle, he didnt know how to get around it and that is what undid his relationship with barack obama. Holbrook was driving him crazy and talking about vietnam and this Ancient Mariner coming to grab the mariner by the lapel saying listen youve got to know. None of the charm was working. He never got the job of his hearts desire, secretary of state. So, this book his boss, morgan christopher, i always felt that showed james baker, nobody could. How dhell do you think Richard Holbrook would have done going up against james baker on the florida recount . How do you think he would have done against baker . One of the interesting things going back as soon as we heard jim baker had been involved. So even at the time before the recount of the differences between the two men, heres the thing one of christophers great mistakes was sitting down and retold thwetold the story in thh the election is undecided whats going to happen in florida. They think that they are going to roll up their and get down to business and negotiating. Jim baker wasnt there to negotiate. He was there when. At that fundamentally is when his experience as a corporate lawyer came into it so there would have been an asymmetry for holbrook that did come from his understanding of what the highstakes mentor ship was. What was in the mind of christopher. That made it hard to particular situations and you have to come back to do you have the respect to command your own team and that was dealing with the bush with they the closest friendliest secretaries of state since madison and jefferson. He thinks ever. Im not so sure. He would have appreciated Richard Holbrook as an adversary and a debate partner. By the way it is a very sexist time. He would have known him for a great player. A. But it is a good thought experiment. Baker versus holbrook. Pick up on georges, let me ask you talked about in the end. Does jim baker know himself . We loved doing this book we got the chance to ask all these questions he wasnt going to open up his psychology and expose himself. He needed to giv did give access papers. He gave us a letter that had never been published before. If he was going to move from the house and try to get baker to run for the seat he said the reason why is his wife is dying and even she doesnt know it. It was considered to be okay when the husband knows and the wife doesnt. He says i cant because my wife is dying. I havent told anybody, i havent told her, my kids, my mother. Of the onthe one person he tells george bush. That is powerful and transformative. She writes a letter because in fact she does know she is dying. He hands her this letter crying even to this day its not psychologically open the way holbrook was its one of the things that made this book. They talked to james baker and mentioned not having Richard Holbrook looking over my shoulder and all the people who talk to me didnt have to worry about what he would say whence he found out what they were saying. That is important in managing their images both the critics would say thats one of the skills talking to the reporters with an extreme sensitivity. One of the greatest sources looking at the memoirs from the time in public life because that is the managing of your image into the parts they dont want to tell you that are as revealing as anything else. He isnt keeping a personal historian around to document. We had the benefit of talking to a subject who is written to memoirs of his own. I found it to be surprisingly candid about his family. How your father micromanaged you so much even after you were a marine veteran and graduated from college you agree not only to go to a law school but insisted the signup for the fraternity they were willing to get a surprisingly personal in a way that helped us understand its what made him able to tackle the hardest jobs. I want to finally ask about todays washington and how you think holbrook would be able to function in the washington of today. Jim baker, what does he think of whats going on now . We know this interview will be released in september and time will pass in another month or so. George, what about that . He would have been at sea they were the influences that he never stopped comparing himself to. It would be a mindboggling appalling place for Richard Holbrook. Everything trump does in the Foreign Policy is the opposite of what holbrook would do. I cant think of a single move trump has made he wouldnt have been talking about the importance of the Transatlantic Alliance and nato and our ally in asia. During the pandemic he would have been a brilliant organizer of other countries. He understood that these could be a threat to our national security. But i think that in a way the social media would have bought out all of these qualities. The mental seducing of the reporters. It didnt matter so much anymore so i think that it would have been inalienable for him. Is watching closely whats going on. It is the antithesis of everything he believes about governance as policy tearing down the architecture of the affairs and the Republican Party baker spent a lifetime building up covering the impeachment trial it was a memo that he had written with the appearance of ethical behavior they kept a file so he would keep the record showing he would not do that and one of the memos he had was coming to george bush 1992 campaign and said you are losing. You need to ask britain or russia for help about understanding the activities end of the baker and busc bush saido not ask the Foreign Policy investors. A. I think that point is very well taken. In many ways, i sat down with him a few days before the 2016 election, and he was absolutely in pain and tortured about what to do with donald trump. He doesnt believe anything i believe when it comes to Foreign Policy. He told me he thought donald trump was nuts and couldnt bring himself to reject the party nominee. He was convinced the only way to yield a power is from the inside. And he just isnt a man who thinks there is any efficacy whatsoever in being our slight howling and complaining. This is a struggle of the party under trump. It is on a personal level is the opposite of him and baker never brought himself to publicly denounce trump. He spent his whole life working in a different direction. Its fascinating. Of thesthese men that helped she washington such enduring legacies. At the books couldnt be more important right now and i want to begin to thank these amazing authors, Richard Holbrook at the end of the american century, and Susan Glasser and peter baker, the man who ran washington, the life and times. Thank you all for an extraordinary conversation. A reminder every program you are seeing this evening from the National Book festival can be watched online at our website, booktv. Org. Coming up here is an author discussion on populism