Baker: enough and in time?

National Review, Oct 5, 1992 by William McGurn

EVER WONDER how the New York Times would cover the Second Coming? Assuming the story wasn't buried in the foreign section, it would probably look a lot like the page-one Maureen Dowd and Thomas L. Friedman story about the return of James A. Baker III to the White House. That's assuming, too, that the Messiah had the prescience to court his friends in the press as faithfully as Jim Baker has done.

Within the campaign, the Times piece was immediately recognized as a classic plant. The Friedman byline was the first tip off, in that his beat is the State Department, not the campaign. Then there was the substance of the piece: there wasn't any. There was nothing about what ideas the former Secretary of State would bring to the campaign, what initiatives would be launched, or how things might have been different if Baker & Co. had been in charge from the beginning. Instead, it was all written as though Jim Baker and his aides were looking in the mirror: "The mood of the Baker team is a mix of anger at having to move in at this late stage, terror at the prospect of being labeled failures, and thrill at the thought of beating the odds."

Note the nice twist. While the rest of the Bush Administration is variously described as "clumsy," "slapdash," and "second-rate," the Baker folks are "whiz-kids," "well-organized," and "the clean-up crew." Against a description of President Bush's "Zelig-like tendency to be as clever as his nearest advisor," Baker is presented as a "wily court magician." For those who don't speak Beltway, allow me to translate: If George Bush loses, it's not Baker's fault. If he wins, Baker must be a genius.

There's no question that Mr. Baker has a genius for making himself look good. There's also no question that he brings some order to a Bush campaign floundering in disarray. The question is whether he has brought any substantive ballast to a Presidency that inexplicably still needs to define itself after four years in office.

"At the end of the day Baker is a very cynical man," says one senior Administration official. "He brings none of Kemp's belief in economic growth, Quayle's belief in shoring up the family, or Bennett's willingness to define values by taking on the Administration's enemies.

"He does recognize the necessity for the appearance of having some issues. But this is a man who believes that the way George Bush wins is by destroying Bill Clinton."

Still and all, even Baker's fiercest critics concede his executive abilities; those who work with him say he is not afraid of having talented people around, that he is a "master" at focusing a meeting, and that he knows how to bring a meeting to a decision without offending those on the losing side. It is a testament to Baker's strengths that, instead of the resentment that normally might be directed at the outsider coming in with a reform mission, people on the campaign are actually grateful for the direction that Baker has brought. Decisions are being made. Interests are being narrowed down. The "9 to 5" mentality that Evans & Novak scored in a recent column is gone: the seven-day work week is now mandatory.

On substance, the most hopeful sign was Baker's farewell remarks at the State Department, where he spoke about a "conservative agenda" that would "build on the fundamentals of lower tax rates, limits on government spending, greater competition, less economic regulation, and more open trade that can unleash tremendous private initiative and growth." He also pointed out the different consequences that flow from the "contrasting philosophies" of the two parties.

The first missed opportunity came on capital gains, but Baker was on the side of the angels. The question was indexing capital gains to inflation unilaterally, which would have had some of the same effect as a tax cut but would not require congressional approval. Ultimately the indexation never materialized because Attorney General William Barr ruled that it would be unconstitutional (a decision supported by a number of conservatives from Robert Bork to Ed Meese). But Baker had been all for it--and he let the word out.

"Baker understands that words count, that symbols mean something," says the campaign's Jim Pinkerton. "This will help us boil it down to not just 'Can you trust Bill Clinton?' but 'Can you afford Bill Clinton?'"

The first real test of the Baker team's ability to inject this kind of clear choice into the campaign came in the President's speech to the Detriot Economic Club. There was no room for excuses here. The whole thing was Baker from top to bottom: choice of venue, timing, everything.

In the end, the speech was vintage Baker, too, with all the plusses and minuses he brings. On the plus side, there was some good supply-side language. And what pleased the White House most was that it finally gave Bush something to hold in his hand and call an economic program. Indeed, the Baker team put the program in an attractive little booklet called Agenda for American Renewal, which the President hawked on national TV, complete with 800 number, looking for all the world like a celebrity plumping for term life insurance.