As we have a virtual frontrow seat to listen in on a fascinating discussion between our friend, talmage boston, and former secretary of state, james baker iii. As you know, secretary baker was a powerhouse in washington, d. C. , in the beltway, and literally around the globe as he served as the United States secretary of state and also further served four United States president s over the course of three decades. Secretary baker was scheduled to be our capstone speaker at the 2020 vision for leadership conference. However, he and mrs. Baker contracted covid19. Im pleased to report that they now have covid19, the illness, in their rear view mirror. Today the secretary will be interviewed by talmage boston. Talmage in his own right is a highprofile persona in texas and across the nation. He is a leading trial lawyer. He is known in our profession as what we call a goto lawyer or a super lawyer. Talmage is also a historian, and he has a special focused interest on the qualities of leadership in the public and the private square. Recently he authored a book where he sat down with authors. Im pleased to announce this is the sixth lecture in the star federalist papers lecture series. The lecture series endowed by john and marie chiles in choeho of judge starr is where we can learn more about the federalist papers and the role of the federalist papers and the ratification of the United States constitution. The papers were authored from 1787 to the time of the ratification of the constitution in 1789 by james madison, who served as the fourth president of the United States, alexander hamilton, who was the first secretary of the treasury of the new republic, and by john jay, who was the first chief justice of the United States supreme court. The purpose of the papers was to persuade the citizenry of the young nation of the need to adopt a new form of government and to leave behind the very loosely Foreign Government which the citizens had seen under the articles of confederation. In authoring the federalist papers, they exhibited, if you will, the very best qualities of leadership that we see in lawyers. Madison was not a lawyer, but he was learned in the law. Hamilton and jay were, of course, lawyers and they used their lawyering powers, their abilities as leaders in the capacity as lawyers and drafters of the federalist papers to successfully usher the constitution to its ratification in 1789. We believe that the discussion today between toalmage boston ad secretary baker will further illuminate the fact that lawyers are given the powers, theyre given the opportunity, theyre given the license by the state to exercise very potently Leadership Qualities in both the public and the private square. With that, i hope you enjoy this fascinating discussion. Thank you. Thank you, dean tobin. Two years ago i wrote a book published by the state bar called raising the bar the crucial role of the lawyer in society. One of the chapters identified as the two most important lawyers of the last 50 years. Leon jaworski on the litigation side and i have the exact replica of his law office at the baylor law library. And the other most important lawyer in the last 50 years was our special guest, secretary james baker. Secretary baker, were delighted youre here. Nobody epitomizes the concept of the lawyer leader more than you. To refresh peoples memories, secretary baker was the leader of his law firm for almost 20 years in houston andrews and kerith firm. And then we went to washington, became number two at the department of commerce and ultimately and essentially led the department of commerce. He was the leader of five different president ial campaigns during reagans first term he was the leader of the white house staff as the white house chief of staff. During his second term, he was the leader of the Treasury Department as the secretary of the treasury. And of course during george h. W. Bushs presidency he was the leader of the state department as secretary of state. In the year 2000 he became the leader of george w. Bushs legal team that prevailed in the landmark case of bush versus gore, so we simply couldnt have a better lawyer leader to be part of this program than secretary baker. Secretary baker, thank you for taking time and being with us today as the final mark of this very important conference. Thank you, talmage. Im delighted to be with you. Now, since youve been a leader in so many different arenas and well be talking about the lawyer as a leader, its going to a logical place to start the conversation is how do you define the word leadership, secretary baker . Well, you know, i think it was the great historian James Mcgregor burns who said leadership is a commitment to values, and the perseverance to fight for those values. I think thats a pretty good description of leadership. The toughest part of that formula is the commitment to fight for those values and getting it done. You know, in washington, d. C. , even back in the days when i was there, its easy to kill deals, its hard to get deals done. Its hard to make deals. And the really difficult part of leadership in my view is the doing. The knowing is really important, but its not as tough as the doing. In order to do, obviously, a lawyerleader has got to be able to persuade. The art of communication, both oral and written communication in my mind, is an essential trait for the lawyerleader. So what do you view as the key . When you think about different lawyerleaders, whats the key to best practices and communication . Well, i think if you want to lead others, you have to start out by making sure that those others are faith in your word. So truthfulness, i think, is extraordinarily important. I also think its important to be consistent. Its pretty hard to be a leader when youre when youre your views change from time to time during the very time youre trying to lead others. You need to be consistent. One of the things that i used to argue for and still think is critical in terms of a white house or a president ial campaign is message discipline. You have to be consistent. You have to be truthful. If youre not either one of those, people are not going to follow you. Now, besides being an effective communicator, another essential trait for the great lawyerleader is to be able to resolve disagreements and conflicts. Typically you do that through effective negotiation. Now, secretary baker, in your legal and political and Public Service careers, youve always been recognized as one of the worlds great negotiators. So if you were going to write a book on the art of negotiation, what would be the theme in its first chapter . Well, i think if you expect to be successful as a negotiator, first of all, you need to understand no negotiation can be a zerosum game. I mean, to be a successful negotiator, youre going to have to make sure that you conduct a negotiation in a way where the other guy leaves the table thinking that hes at least achieved something. So the number one thing, i think, for a successful negotiation is to begin by putting yourself in your interlo cuters shoes, so you understand what his or her red lines are, what she or he can reasonably be expected to agree to. And once you do that, i think you increased the chances of a successful negotiation. Again, i would go back to trustworthiness. You need to make sure if youre going to be a successful negotiator that the person across the table has faith in your word. That that person doesnt think youre going to be lying to them or fudging around the margins. And so its very important that your word be good if youre going to be successfully negotiate with someone. When we think about walking in somebody elses shoes, the word that comes told, to me at least, is the word empathy, in terms of understanding kind of where the other person is who comes to the table who youre trying to make a deal with. Right. Can you think of a specific instance where having a high level of empathy for a counterpart made a big difference in American Foreign policy . Well, probably a lot of them. The most prominent one that comes to my mind is after the berlin wall fell. We knew, president george bush and i knew as secretary of state we had a lot of business to do with gorbachev and his foreign minister. We didnt rub their noses in it. We were very restrained to the point that president bush was criticized roundly for not showing more emotion at the fall of the wall. After all, we had been in the cold war situation with the soviets for over 40 years. The war had ended. We had won. Why werent we celebrating . We werent celebrating because we didnt want to stick it in their eye since we had a lot more a lot more things we needed to get done. And i think that would be one good example. So after youve walked in your counterparts shoes and empathized, you get to the table. Its time to start the actual horse trading, as we say in texas. Right. So what do you think in order to be able to strike a deal, you talked a minute ago about not viewing it as a zerosum game. You talk about the importance of pragmatism. Right. Expand how you always kept pragmatism in the front of your mind in your negotiations. You know, at times when i was up there, and even today, its easy to politically demonize pragmatism because pragmatism of necessity means compromise. Compromise is not and should never have been a dirty word. Unfortunately, it has been a dirty word sometimes in the past and if you look at washington today, it may be perceived to be a dirty word today. But thats how you get things done. Pragmatism is the art of the possible. Youre never going to get everything. If you go into a negotiation thinking you got to have everything your starting position outlined, youre not going to be successful. Pragmatism is the art of the possible. So i think its really important when you start negotiating to realize that negotiation is a give and take. You need to understand, particularly when youre negotiating in washington, d. C. , for instance, or internationally, that in a democracy, no one side gets to make all the rules. And, therefore, you got to be willing to give up a little to get a lot. And a lot of people enter a negotiation without having that view and theyre for the most part never successful. Secretary baker, back to the world of negotiation. You talked about the importance of trustworthiness. When youre in that situation, what are the things that you do to try to build trust and the rapport you have for the western across the table . Well, the one thing you have to be very careful about, particularly in International Negotiations, is to make sure that your word is good, and that your interlo cuter never had occasion or reason to doubt what you tell them. That means you dont say anything thats not backed up by the facts. The worst thing you can do, in my opinion, in a negotiation is to get caught in a lie. Then its almost all over because the other guy thinks to himself, boy, i cant trust anything this fella says. And so you really got to be careful that what you say is accurate and that its true and that you can prove it. And you need to also test the other guy across the table with respect to the trustworthiness of his or her statements to you. Those statements have got to be true. The purest way to kill a negotiation is for one of the negotiators to catch the other in a lie. Now, you have read much of your work, of course your books. You had a tactic that you use to build this trustworthiness called parallel reciprocal confidence building. Tell our audience what that was. Thats nothing more than nothing more than understanding that to get to the endgame sometimes normally, not just sometimes, normally a negotiation is a series of discrete negotiations. If you can find a way to approach your interlocuter to build on the idea that if youre willing to do x, im willing to do y. Those arent the end ofbbjectiv, but theyre steps along the way that can be taken that will build trust. It will build confidence and it will lead you toward the desired result. You have to always remain flexible. I mean, flexibility is really important. Flexibility is important, as you know, in the practice of law. Its important in politics and its certainly important in negotiation. Now, as you know, this conference that Baylor Law School put together this year, many people in our audience are legal educators who aspire to plant seeds of leadership in their students at their respective law students. Youve mentored many young people throughout your amazing life, many of whom have become leaders in their own rights. So whats been the key for you in planting and cultivating seeds of leadership in the young people who youve worked around . First of all, you got to set a good example for them. Secondly, i think its important to teach them leadership skills, teach them what your experiences taught you is required to become a leader. And i think thats really important. You know, kids kids can learn these skills. Leadership skills are skills that can be taught. We just talked about a lot of them. And students can learn those, but theyre not going to learn them if theyre not presented to them, so i think teaching leadership skills is really important. Theres a new book that just came out a couple weeks ago. There you are on the cover. Its your biography. Its appropriately titled the man who ran washington the life and times of james a. Baker iii, written by peter baker and his wife, susan glasser, staff writer for the new yorker. I know you collaborated with them in the research and setting up the interviews, but you did not have any editorial control over the final product. No. So im sure youve read it. Whats it like to read the biography of yourself published, huge reviews in the New York Times . What did you think of the book and its presentation of your life . Well, of course i was a little apprehensive because im a conservative republican, and the new yorker and the New York Times are not necessarily conservative publications. But i determined there wasnt anything out there for me to hide, so i gave them everything. I gave them boxes, files of correspondence from years ago with my parents and with my sib, my sister, and others. And i just had at it because i was not really particularly worried. Was i a little apprehensive about what conclusions they might come to . You bet i was. Are there some conclusions in the book that i would tend to disagree with . You bet there are. Do i think on balance that this is a really fair and complete, fullthroated biography of my life . I do. I think it was fair. It certainly covers everything. There were some things in there that i didnt necessarily know. I disagree with some of the authors some peter and susans credon collusion its a pretty darn good book and theyre excellent writers. I did a program, believe it or not, earlier this morning with David Rube Stein who i know you worked with for many years. Yeah. He did a ram wiprogram with recently and he said this book is worthy of a pulitzer. I think it would help to build your legacy for generations to come. Well, let me just say that in my opinion, they did a really, really good job, and that the warts that are in there, they dealt with them in a fair way. So i was pleased with it, to talmage. Later there will be links to both amazon and Penguin Random house double day, so i hope that many of you will make sure you get this book because its a fantastic read, well deserving of the great reviews its gotten but mostly to tell the life of our special guest, secretary baker. Now, as developed in the book, in fact, its in the introduction. You said this a lot. Your perspective has always been the point of Holding Power is getting things done. And during your years in washington, obviously, you did a great job of that. And peter and susan saying, say, in the book that one of the reasons that you were able to achieve so many goals is because you were not crusader. They say you had no ideological fervor. So do you agree in your political and International Negotiations you had essentially no ideological fervor . Well, i dont know what you mean by ideological fervor. I was chief of Staff White House chief of staff of president Ronald Reagan. Ronald reagan was pretty ideological. And so its a question of balance, i think. The commitment to values that i mentioned earlier, the definition of leadership, its a commitment to values. And those values are ideological. Usually, for the most part. And so you have to have some ideological component in your policy and your worldview, but its a question of balance. I think if youre overly ideological, youre going to be too strict and too wedded to the ultimate. Government negotiations are a matter of balance. You need the ideological. You need to be you know, theres a conflict in Foreign Policy, for instance, well known, between realists and idealists. You have to have some realism in your Foreign Policy but you also have to have some idealism. Now, ideological fervor, i dont know exactly what you mean by that but youd better have some idealists and our Foreign Policy, americas Foreign Policy is built on idealistic principle. I heard you last november when you spoke to the World Affairs council, and of course, ive read david rube yerubesteik where he entered view you. Would you be able to achieve in todays politics the kinds of things that you did during your hay day in washington from 1980 through 1992, you the ultimate principal pragmatist and this unbelievable dysfunction. Is there a place for somebody with your skill set and principle practicing mattism in todays washington, d. C. . I would hope there would be. I dont know. Nothing i accomplished could ever have been accomplished without without the president s whom i served. So today, i mean, leadership has to come from the top. And we need leaders, we need president s today who want to see that whole paradigm reestablished, where people go to washington to do the nations business. Not to fight and squabble and argue all the time. And by the way, we need a press that views that as the objective. You know, the press today, when i was there, the press was to some degree, they had their biases, but to some degree, they were objective reporters of the facts. Today, thats no longer the case. This is a serious problem for our democracy. Our press today are player