Baker, naturally, was trying to preserve his credibility during the delicate peace mission. But the body language this week between old friends George Bush and Jim Baker suggested something more: while Bush is confident that Baker is going to come help him, Baker remains wary of the Prospect. He should be.
Loyalty would dictate that Baker return to the White House to help his friend. It’s often said that Bush wouldn’t be where he is today without his perennial campaign chief Baker. In fact Baker wouldn’t be where he is today without his old friend Bush. Baker was a 4O-year-old Houston lawyer, devastated by the death of his first wife, when his sometime tennis partner Bush, then a young congressman, suggested Baker bury his grief by managing a county for Bush’s 1970 Senate campaign. Bush lost, but Baker proved to be a political natural. His skills opened the door to a succession of Washington power posts: White House chief of staff, Treasury secretary to Ronald Reagan and now secretary of state to Bush. Simple self-preservation is another reason for Baker to ride to Bush’s rescue: the diplomat’s job Baker loves so well is history if Bush loses in November.
But Baker risks a lot more by going than by staying right where he is. His Mideast diplomacy is on the brink of real achievement: an autonomy deal for the Palestinians. Despite the election of a moderate new Israeli government, the talks could founder without Baker. While Baker hinted to the Arabs last week that he’d keep his hand in the Peace Process even if he did switch posts, he is deluding himself if he thinks he can do both jobs well. And if a world crisis erupts while State is being run by a caretaker, Bush and Baker would be exposed as having cravenly sacrificed U.S. interests on the altar of Bush’s re-election ambitions.
The risk to Baker’s personal reputation is even greater. He has labored for more than a decade to trade his political handler’s persona for something with more independence and stature. His first bid-as Treasury secretary ended abruptly when Bush prevailed on him in 1988 to take charge of his faltering presidential campaign. But as secretary of state, Baker has finally achieved in the world of Washington what his blue-blood Houston family valued: professionalism, not Politics. “His father would have been damn proud of Jim becoming secretary of state,” said a longtime friend. “He wouldn’t have thought much of him being a pol.” If Baker returns to bail out Bush now-no matter how glorified his White House title-he’ll be just a pol again.
The move endangers Baker’s vaunted political reputation, too. Bush’s domestic record is so hollow, Baker’s skills could well fall short of the mark. Baker’s reputation would be further tarred if a desperate Bush campaign were to go negative. Baker somehow evaded blame for the infamous Willie Horton campaign against Michael Dukakis; campaign manager Lee Atwater took the hit. Should Bush take the low road again, the mud would stick to Baker.
If the secretary of state had put out the “no decision” word at the outset of his Mideast trip, he might have squelched the wild press speculation that a Baker aide complained was “lame-ducking him out here.” So why didn’t he? Perhaps Baker didn’t want to hint that he and Bush don’t see eye to eye on his prospects. Perhaps Baker deliberately let the story fester, hoping the negative reaction would reveal to his friend Bush the clear downsides of the move. “I’m wrestling with figuring out a way to stay out of this thing,” he told a State Department adviser a few days before leaving for WYoming. Baker’s instincts should tell him that if he has to leave Washington next Jan. 20, far better he leave as a successful statesman than as a failed pol.
