Countdown

Home > Interviews > Howard H. Baker, Jr.

Howard H. Baker, Jr.

Howard H. Baker, Jr., a Republican, was a U.S. senator from Tennessee from 1967 to 1985 and was the Senate’s Republican leader from 1977 to 1985. He was the White House chief of staff during the last two years of the Reagan administration and was President George W. Bush’s first ambassador to Japan. In 1980, he was a Republican candidate for president. He is currently senior counsel to Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, the law firm his grandfather founded. He is married to former U.S. Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, a Kansas Republican.

John W. Mashek interviewed Baker on May 7, 2007.

What do you see as the main difference, right now, between when you ran for president in [1980] and now in ’07? Is it money or is it a lot of other things that have changed?

It’s a lot of other things. Money is certainly one of them, although I have the view that money is receding in importance. It’s a little like my father told me years ago when I was a young man, and I was ambitious to do something that required some money. He said: “Son, remember, the difference between enough money and all of the money in the world is enormous. But the difference between enough money and not enough money is really important.” But that’s what’s happening. Now, the quantity of money isn’t as important as the fact that you have enough money in order to do the expensive things with the media and travel.

Well, do you reach a point of diminishing returns then? I mean, we know right now that the so-called top tier — I hate that term, but the three on the Republican, three on the Democratic side — are going to raise anywhere from $50 million to $100 million. And you can throw that figure away.

I think the law of diminishing returns does operate in this case. And I also think there is a possibility of a growing rebellion or resentment of fundraising activities and candidates. People get tired of being called.

When you ran, wasn’t money raised more by not just you, but other candidates, both by direct mail and you getting on the phone? And now it’s almost all Internet.

Well, that’s true. And that has changed dramatically the way you raise money now. But the ability to raise prodigious sums of money is amazing to me. But on the Internet, it has been demonstrated, you can raise a tremendous amount of money in a fairly short period of time. And people like Fred Thompson, who I think will run [but] is not yet running for the presidential nomination, probably could not run were it not for that development.

Well, isn’t former Senator Thompson getting a lot of free media time now? He hasn’t spent a penny. And his name is being mentioned far and wide.

That’s right. Somebody said the other day to him, “Fred, you got to announce or you’ll get in [too] late.” He said: “Why should I announce? I am doing pretty good. I am coming up in the polls. If I announce, I’ll probably go down in the polls.” Which is not right, but anyway, money is important, obviously. But enough money is really important. Not enough money is really important. But it’s easier now, I think, to raise the amount of money you need without an enormous effort.

Let me be the devil’s advocate. I always ask this question: People seem to be shocked when you tell them maybe, in this election cycle, $4 billion to $5 billion may be spent. And then you tell them, “Well, what price is democracy worth?” There is more money spent on ads by pharmaceutical companies every year. And so it makes that look a little bit different when you compare it to television advertising.

That’s true. There is more money, by far, spent on dog food [commercials] than there is on [political] TV commercials. But people get tired of TV commercials, too. So TV commercials, advertising, are not the end-all of American politics, contrary to the conventional wisdom. It is essential in order to gain recognition and set people to thinking about you as a president. But it is not a determining factor in every case.

Well, you set me up there by talking about the television advertising. There is going to be an absolute torrent of it very soon, very costly, and particularly in big media markets like California where consultants get a 15 [percent] commission.

That’s right.

And people can get very rich in a California election.

That’s true.

In this next primary season, with all of those primaries on February 5, that’s when money, I think, probably might be important, or at least where candidates pick and choose.

That’s right. I think that’s true. It’s an interesting development, too, since you speak of the primaries, how they have gathered up and become the functional equivalent of a national primary. No one will remember, nor need they remember, that in a book I wrote years ago —it was called No Margin for Error, which was an instant failure —I recommended that we have a national primary, actually, that we have four national primaries.

Four regionals?

But regional running from east to west, cut like a cake. So, if you try to diminish or reduce it, at least [there is] that impact of regionalism.

With a one-week interval between the four or even a longer period of time?

That’s right, about a week. But that’s not likely. I think if it happens spontaneously now, it will develop into an established norm.

What’s your feeling that the superduper primary, now, we call it, on February 5 is going to make Iowa, and New Hampshire, and South Carolina even more important or less important?

Hard to tell. The one thing I have discovered at my age is that every instinct I have about politics is wrong. So I will patiently wait to see how the public reacts to that.

Almost all of the conventional wisdom, which of course as we both know can be wrong, [says] on February 5, we are probably going to know who the nominees of the two parties are. And there is a hiatus between February 5 and the two party conventions. And then we in the media seem to think that’s the time to define your opponent and that there is going to be a slew of negative ads on both sides to get a leg up on the other opponent. What’s your feeling about that long period of time when the public really isn’t focused on politics yet?

And don’t want to be bothered with it. I think people will be put off by that long stretch of time. I think it’s too long. I think it will disserve the candidates of the system. It will cost horrendous amounts of money. I think it’s not a favorable ratio.

Tell me a little bit more about the regional [primaries], because I believe I have read where you have advocated that. Would you start on the East Coast in like 13 states, and then to the South 17, and the Midwest, and the far West ending it? Is that the way you would set it up?

Yes, I would cut it like a cake. And it doesn’t matter where you start. But I would try to avoid regionalism as much as I could by running from east to west or west to east in a band of states, rather than going north to south or in the traditional regional configuration. I may be overemphasizing the importance of diminishing regionalism, but I don’t think so. Regionalism was once the all-consuming passion in national politics. It’s less so now, because we are more nearly a nation-state than we have ever been, largely as a result of television, radio, jet airplanes, and the ability of people to travel from place to place at a relatively short period of time and in a convenient way. So I think regionalism is less important now than it was. You don’t hear much talk now about the “solid South” or the Western states. You hear more about the traditional national candidates, the national pitch. If I were running a campaign, which I am not, or if I was advising someone to run a national campaign for president, [I’d say to] forget regionalism. Forget regionalism as a candidate. Forget it if you get elected. The country no longer is really regional. It preserves its culture from area to area. It’s proud of its language and dialect from area to area. But the politics is no longer driven by recollections of the Civil War.

Florida is about to jump the gun and move its primary to January, which both party chairmen in South Carolina said, “Well, we’ll just have to have ours on Halloween, I guess.” So you get this competition, with the two national parties saying, “Well, we are going to punish the states and give them fewer delegates.” And the states that are doing this said, “Try me — I don’t feel your pain.” So is that going to turn into circus?

No. What it’s going to do, in my opinion, is drive the federal government into establishing primary dates. I hate to see that, because I like to see . . .

The states have control.

That’s right. But if you get into a fierce competition for times for the primary, I don’t think there is any other possibility. Maybe you could have state compacts if you get the states to agree. But the surest way to do it is to let the federal government decide that a national primary is in the national interest. And that the date is so-and-so and the qualifications are such-and-such. And now boys, have at it.

With this being the first election in almost two generations where there hasn’t been a sitting vice president running or somebody who’s considered the heir apparent, does this make the debates more important? I am guessing now, but I would think that the candidates would be eager to debate. And you won’t have the prolonged debate on debates — what table they are going to sit at and all that. Maybe I am thinking blue sky, but . . .

No, you are not. That’s true, I believe. But there is another factor there, perhaps a controlling factor. And that is that politics, more than any other endeavor, is not purely a rational channel on communications. People listen, I suppose, usually, to what a candidate says. But I am convinced that they mostly decide on the basis of nonverbal, empathetic reaction to a particular candidate. Either they like them or they don’t like them. They like what they say or not what they say. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the debates will be less important. But that remains to be seen. I do not have the judgment, the wisdom, nor the willingness to try to second-guess what the country will decide about that.

Because former Senator [Fred] Thompson is from your home state, is it possible that even on the Democratic side somebody could jump in late this year because it seems to be such a fluid situation?

Oh, sure. I think it’s even likely that that will happen. And perhaps someone ought to tell the candidates, and not me, but someone ought to say, “Look, boys, it’s earlier than you think.” And in this age of instantaneous communication, and almost instantaneous transportation, people will decide quickly and emphatically what they want and what they don’t.

As a self-confessed political junky, I have to tell you that watching the two debates so far of all of the Democrats and all of the Republicans, you didn’t need to take an Ambien to go to sleep. Now it isn’t the candidates so much, Senator Baker, it’s there are too many. And it’s all lost.

In the statements you just made, the most dispiriting thing, the most disturbing thing is when you say, “When you heard all of the candidates.” I hope it’s not all of the candidates, because there must be something else out there.

Well, since we are talking up Tennessee, somebody asked me who the winner of the Democratic debate was. And I said, “Al Gore, because he wasn’t there.”

That’s right.

And maybe on the Republican side it was Fred Thompson, because he wasn’t there.

That is also true. I absolutely believe that’s true. I think that may be the leading edge of the next wave of politics in America, to avoid the traditional campaigns, to avoid the long and costly campaigns, but rather to adopt a different technique that will let you project not only your position but your image so that people can decide if they trust you to be president or not.

Senator, you were comfortable on the political stage. Some say that they would like to see [something other than] than the debates sponsored by the two parties. . . . I can vaguely remember this: Barry Goldwater and John Kennedy liked each other. They teased each other. They had agreed that if they were the nominees, they would be willing to get on a train and travel together and poke fun at each other. Now could you imagine a consultant agreeing to do that now? Because they can’t manage it.

The thing about consultants is that you must realize, almost without exception, that they advise candidates on how to win the last election, not the present election. And to give you an answer to your question, I cannot imagine that. However, I must say, that [Kennedy]-Goldwater suggestion, which was never implemented, is still a good one. And it goes back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. But debates don’t amount to much when you have a crowd. Debates are pretty good if you have two. But I don’t think that you could go beyond that, really, and have any meaningful dialogue.

Just one other question, Senator, because there are such big fields right now, and voters really haven’t started fastening on the election. Do you think that it could also provoke an independent, like a Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg — not a Ross Perot, but a Mayor Bloomberg — [to run], or is it still too difficult?

Perhaps. Yes, it is difficult. My personal view is that it’s too difficult. I shouldn’t say this, I guess, but I have told one or two, one of whom you have mentioned, that I thought it still would be too difficult to succeed as a third-party or independent candidate. But it’s not impossible. They could reach that point. But I hope not, because I think the two-party system in this country is a valuable contributor. I think the competition for the right to carry the banner of the two great national political parties has a good effect on the candidates and on the country. So I hope it doesn’t come to that. But it is not impossible.

The track record of third-party or independent candidates, even dating back to the last one who was successful at all, was [George] Wallace, who carried some Southern states . . . and [Ralph] Nader was a spoiler, certainly. But John Anderson, did he get 6 percent of the vote, no electoral votes?

Yeah.

So it’s almost insurmountable when you think of even a billionaire like Ross Perot, very difficult.

There is one kicker in there. You mentioned Ross Perot. There are others you mentioned.

Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, yeah.

He’s worth billions.

And no doubt there are others as well. But that little old loophole in the campaign-finance laws, the Supreme Court has dictated that you can’t restrict what a person can spend on his own campaign. It creates a huge advantage for those with great wealth. I don’t think it’s enough to change the circumstance. But it’s not impossible.

Do you think that McCain-Feingold may be going the way of all flesh? And that the Supreme Court, as now constituted, will throw it out?

I’m still a lawyer, John. I have made a career, without exception, of never trying to guess what the Supreme Court will do.