Peter Baker (1)Critiques

Excellent read of geopolitical life during 90's and international diplomacy.

The authors are married. The 32-chapter audiobook with epilogue takes twenty-nine hours to complete. It is a very good account of the events of the Donald Trump presidency.

This massive (over 700 pages) accounting of the four years this country survived the presidency of Donald J. Trump does a public service to the U.S. I firmly believe if it were somehow possible to get every voting citizen to read “The Divider,” Trump would fade into oblivion. Unfortunately, not only is that not possible, but as of this writing Trump is the leading candidate of both political parties to be re-elected president in 2024. In fact, he is so far ahead of any of his Republican primary opponents, it would be possible for him to forego all campaigning and he would still be nominated. That may very well be what he is doing right now since his early campaign events are very controlled and not the kinds of events designed to win over voters not in his base. What is most disturbing about Baker and Glasser’s book is that their book is evidence that one of our two political parties is arguably rotten to the core. The fact that a solid majority of Republicans fervently stand behind Trump now that he has been impeached twice and is facing more than 35 (and counting) criminal indictments is more depressing than the possibility of Trump winning a third term because it is proof that our democracy is broken. Time will tell our future, but it is not bright

I made it through 250 pages and the writing is excellent but I realized that I was just plain SICK of reading about Trump. Yes, Baker and Glasser provide more detail about what was going on in those years but for those of us who were watching and reading about it daily as it happened, this is more than enough. Living through it was hard enough.

I spent a fair amount of the time I was reading this book wondering why I putting myself through Trump's presidential term again. It was awful enough living through it the first time!

Which should tell you something about the urgency of the prose, the immediacy of the writing, which is excellent. I find this to be a very readable, yet very detailed and documented, history of Trump's time in the White House. I recommend it.

The authors set out to document, as they put it, “the inexorable culmination of a sustained four-year war on the institutions and traditions of American democracy.”

Of Donald Trump, they write:

"He did not know that Puerto Rico was part of the United States, did not know whether Colombia was in North America or South America, thought Finland was part of Russia, and mixed up the Baltics with the Balkans. He got confused about how World War I started, did not understand the basics of America’s vast nuclear arsenal, did not grasp the concept of constitutional separation of powers, did not understand how courts worked. ‘How do I declare war?’ He asked at one point, to the alarm of his staff, who realized he was unaware that the Constitution prescribes that role for Congress. He seemed genuinely surprised to learn that Abraham Lincoln had been a member of the Republican Party. ‘He knew nothing about most things,’ observed one top aid. Advisers soon realized they had to tutor him on the basics of how government worked.”

…and yet, he became the 45th President of the United States!

As President, he was always concerned more about appearance than substance. He loved the trappings of office, and never passed up a good photo-op. He made many appointments to key positions based on how well the candidate would look on television rather than on their qualifications. He even spent “exhaustive amounts of time each morning combing and twisting the long strands of his awkwardly colored hair.”

Watching television took up an inordinate amount of Trump’s time. He passed many hours watching his favorite network, Fox, and often made decisions based on how they would play with his ratings. Although his family and friends had relatively easy access to him, key members of his administration frequently had trouble gaining his attention. Newt Gingrich even said “The two most effective ways of communicating with Trump are ‘Fox and Friends’ and ‘Hannity.’”

But television wasn’t the only media outlet he wanted to dominate. He used Twitter as an outlet for outrage and a means for self-praise, and “fact-checking was never part of the process.”

His foreign policy, if he can be said to have had one, revolved around his “conviction that the country had been taken for a ride by foreign allies and adversaries alike.” Everything was about transactions with Trump, and all transactions were about “winning,” which to Trump generally meant getting money or favors. He alienated traditional allies and courted enemies and adversaries.

He sought constant adulation and was much more interested in appearing in rallies than in governing. He surrounded himself with sycophants and yes-men, and fired aides who dared to challenge his whims. He turned most conversations into some way of bragging and exaggerating about his supposed “accomplishments.” He lied constantly: the Washington Post fact checker counted 30,573 false or misleading public statements he made while president!

Baker and Glasser follow Trump’s chaotic presidency in carefully researched detail from his false claims of the biggest inauguration crowd in history to his aborted effort to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election. It was, in their words:

". . . an unimaginable period in our history when the United States had a leader for the first time who neither knew nor subscribed to many of the fundamental tenets of the Constitution and even actively worked to undermine them."

Evaluation: This book is an excellent, almost day by day, summary of the Trump presidency. Every chapter outlines reasons for enlightened citizens who love the United States to be angry.

(JAB)

For more reviews and bookish posts please visit: https://www.ManOfLaBook.com

The Divider: Trump in the White 2017 – 2021 by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser is a comprehensive overview of President Donald J. Trump’s administration. Mr. Baker and Mrs. Glasser are journalists, and a happily married to each other.

The book is a compelling narrative of an administration steeped in non-stop scandal, much of it its own doing. Touching almost every headline generated from the oval office, and many generated about it. From the Muslim ban to the border wall, to the election and the attempt to overturn the results.

The book paints Trump as a President who thinks he knows everything. This is not unique to American Presidents. Teddy Roosevelt was known to preach to experts, Nixon of course thought he knew more than anyone, among others. The difference, as many knew at the time, is that President Trump was so convinced he knew everything better than everyone and simply refused to listen to other opinions. I’ve read several articles about why that is, but that is not relevant to this book.

We’ve heard this before: Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy. There’s nothing earth-shattering about the book, and I don’t know why some of the stories were included instead of policy discussion. And yet, this is a comprehensive, extremely well-researched, readable, and fascinating book.

The Divider Peter Baker and Susan Glasser does a good job, however, detailing how the GOP became the Party of Trump. Much like in Thank You for Your Servitude, it chronicles how party leaders just sat back and let Trump take it over, ideology be damned as long as there’s a win at the end of the election. The main beneficiary of this was Mitch McConnel’s agenda, but the price was high. A political party with no platform, agenda, or position other than “we stand with Trump”, as the 2020 RNC’s platform blatantly stated.

I do disagree with some of the assessments, for example:

“Trump seemed to believe that he could win again by replicating the polarizing strategy that worked in 2016, however much of a fluke its success has been.”

Was it really a fluke?
Divide and conquer has been a winning strategy for a long time, and has been honed to a fine science by Karl Rove. If anything, winning by inclusivity is a fluke.

The authors point out, over and over again, that Trump’s biggest foe was himself. His need for enemies, real or imagined, as well as pitting advisors and staff against one another, were the biggest obstacles. Jared Kushner, however, comes across as a competent administrator, who learned quickly how to manage his father-in-law (I am looking forward to reading his book at some point).

The most sobering aspect of this book was how many highly educated people in high office were willing to overturn an election, lie, and cheat because their side lost. As the authors point out, the threat to the United States is not only Trump but those willing to pick up his anti-Democratic mantle.

As the authors point out, a comprehensive, detailed account of the Trump administration has not been published. If history is any indicator, we have about two decades to wait.

If you’re leaning to the left, center, or right you’ll probably like this book. If you’re a MAGA Republican, probably not so much. However, it is packed with first-hand quotes, as well as great information, so I do feel that it has a lot of value.

I was looking forward to learning details about the Bush administration, and while there was some information there it seemed to focus more on Cheney than I would have liked.
Good writing and not hard to read.

"He was no visionary, no innovator. He articulated no grand plan for the country or the world. He did not start Reagan's revolution, not the one that later swept Eastern Europe. Yet he figured out how to channel those forces, to harness them and focus them on constructive outcomes while avoiding potential disasters. He could bring together people who were more comfortable apart and find pragmatic ways to paper over any rifts. There was a little idealism involved and a fair degree of opportunism. He was not above political hardball to advance his team’s chances at the ballot box. He never lost sight of what was good for Jim Baker and he survived the ruthless arena of Washington. Asked in later years his biggest accomplishment, he regularly joked, “leaving Washington unindicted," a line he lifted from a Doonesbury cartoon. But somehow in the main, it worked. Things got done.”

Jim Baker may have been one of the most powerful men in the United States. He worked in high level positions both within the Reagan and George H Bush administrations. He simply got things done! Both respected and reviled, Baker was able to manage the corridors of power not only in Washington but throughout the world.

If one wants to understand our current history and politics, one has to understand Baker’s role in both. This is a very long book (600 pages) but the authors do an excellent job of moving along the narrative with various anecedotes and insights. It appears to be a very fair book regarding Baker the power broker and Baker, the man.

Excellent book...

Living through the Bush years, and having read many of the books written about the Bush Presidency, both by Administration insiders as well as by media pundants, I didn't expect to find much new in this book. But to my surprise, there was much I'd forgotten about, or never realized, which I learned or relearned after reading "Days of Fire". For example, with so much political opposition to taking action on limiting carbon emissions or believing in the global warming phenomenon, especially by the Republican Party, I was surprised to be reminded that during Bush's initial presidential campaign, he spoke of addressing global warming, and later in his second term, actually supported "Cap and Trade" legislation to limit carbon emissions.

Readers who were and remain Bush loyalists may not feel that he is described in the most flattering light in Peter Baker's book, but personally, I think he was described quite positively, especially considering how he left office as one of America's most unpopular Presidents. Dick Cheney's description however, would not be considered to be very positive. Cheney's description is consistent with how he's portrayed in Barton Gellman's book "Angler", or Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side". Baker describes how important Dick Cheney was to Bush's presidency, especially during his first term, and how Cheney's influence was lessened as Bush became more experienced and grew into his job. But it seemed that the bulk of the most criticized elements of the Bush Administration ended up being tied back to the advice and recommendations of "the most powerful Vice-President in American history", Dick Cheney.

"Days of Fire" covers the eight years of the Bush Presidency in detail, and despite the book's length, there wasn't that much extraneous material included. Baker takes the reader through a chronological review of the Bush years, covering how his most recognized policies and decisions were made. This includes his tax cuts, the response to 9/11, the decision to invade Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, his Democracy agenda, his general disdain for the Clinton Presidency, his No Child Left Behind program, the Medicaid Prescription Plan, his Supreme Court nominations, the Katrina response, the TARP and auto bailout programs, his position on North Korea and Iran, and his failed attempts at changing Social Security, tax reform, etc., all based on his thorough review of White House records and countless interviews with the Bush team, including Vice President Cheney.

Bush is presented in a sympathetic fashion, fiercely loyal to his team (which hurt him on occasion), and more in charge than many were inclined to believe. There's not a lot of analysis of the Bush policies, but more a complete review of what transpired. Most interesting to me throughout the book was the description of the influence of Cheney on the Bush Presidency, especially in pushing what ended up as being unpopular decisions, such as the Iraq war, "enhanced" interrogation techniques, eavesdropping, and in preventing or opposing other considerations including improved fuel economy for auto fleets, the bank bailouts, developing carbon reduction policies, and early troop withdrawals.

A brief overview of the impeachment proceedings against Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. It does an excellent job of summarizing the general historical consensus around these impeachments. A good introductory primer -- but one that will leave you wanting to learn a lot more about each of the efforts.

This book gives a nice history of White House & DC during the 1980s and 1990s. Interesting character !

The book doesn't discuss the present (05-2019) situation with Donald Trump, but the authors are aware that this is overhanging their analysis. I can remember both of the cases of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, but I have promised myself to limit personal observations and snarky comments.

Jeffrey A. Engel opens with a discussion of the process by which impeachment was included in the Constitution and the haggling over the words that were to describe grounds for impeachment. They saw that it was possible that Congress could use the process to eject a president they disagreed with as well as the need to be able to remove a president who was trying to become a tyrant or run a criminal enterprise. I think he is a touch too kind to Andrew Johnson.

Jon Meachem, Timothy Naftili, and Peter BakerJon Meachem, Timothy Naftili, and Peter Baker cover the cases of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, respectively. For the most part, I thought that they did an excellent job.

In the case of Johnson, I always thought the inclusion of Edmund G. Ross in Profiles in Courage was a trifle unfair since his vote wouldn't have mattered if six other Republicans hadn't also broken with their party, and none of them was ever re-elected to office. Johnson is a case in point that the vice-president isn't just a balancing factor on a ticket -- there are serious consequences if the president dies, as Lincoln shortly did. I had to keep reminding myself that the Supreme Court had not yet applied the Fourteenth Amendments to the states to accept that Johnson wasn't convicted. He is one of the few cases of a President who was never elected on his own; Gerald Ford, somewhat coincidentally, is another when he replaced Nixon. Both men, of course, were rejected at the next Presidential election, although Johnson was re-elected to the Senate in 1875, winning, as he did in the case of his impeachment, by one vote.

Well written and well balanced. I did not learn anything startlingly new from it as I had followed the events pretty closely at the time. Based on my memory this seems to be a well researched, factual account. I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse better.

Days of Fire is an interesting, fairly objective, narrative of the Bush presidency and the role and relationship of Dick Cheney and President Bush. It focuses on the events that overtook the Bush presidency and the actions of Bush and Cheney as they attempted to lead the country through the myriad of disasters - most of their own making.

There can be no doubt that Bush - immediately after 9-11, found his voice and guided the country effectively for the first year of the War on Terror. However, even the most ardent Bush supporter would have problems understanding the U.S. involvement in the Iraqi war. The disaster that occurred there - despite the surge that saved the war - would define his presidency.

The book treats Bush fairly, he comes off as well meaning and compassionate but with an unfortunate willingness to shoot from the hip without due consideration. It amazed me that almost all his policies seemed to change significantly throughout his eight years of presidency. The book however certainly doesn't hide the numerous mistakes made and how by being loyal to a fault he made things worse.

Cheney however comes to the Vice President's role fully formed - he is what he is and he won't be anything else - and as a result comes off as a cold hearted bastard.

It also was surprising to learn about the in-fighting between Bush's top aides and the agendas that were being fought for and how Bush was under-served by most of them.

Interesting and well written, certainly not the last word on the Bush presidency, but an important one, Days of Fire is a worthy read.

If you love Russia, or know someone who does, or have concern for someone who lives there then this book is for you. A great record of what's happened in the last 6 years under Putin. Things are getting worse and less free in Russia, not better. People who say "the verdict is still out on Putin," should probably read this book. In the past few years most "free" speech has been virtually outlawed, all TV media is now state-owned, oil and gas have been renationalized, the quagmire in Chechnya has continued, and all political parties and elections are now controlled by Putin and his party. My personal belief is that in 5-10 years you will no longer see Western missionaries allowed to live in Russia.

I found a good example of the censorship that the book talks about just yesterday. One of the websites that I used to frequent for information on Chechnya and to chat with Caucasus peoples was shut down. Kafkazcenter.com was housed in Sweden, where the Russian embassy allegedly convinced Swedish authorities to raid their offices and confiscate their servers for inciting terrorism. The site is very pro-Islam, and anti-Russian authority. You can find info on rebel attacks there that you won't see on any other news source. It's back up and running, for now, on Lithuanian servers.

This takes you through 2005. The early years of the Putin dictatorship when he took control of the media, kept stoking the fires in the former republics and established his government of cronyism featuring many of his ex-KGB pals. Also covers the Chechnyan terrorist attacks in Russia and how he completely befuddled and manipulated Bush. Very interesting commentary on how he revived many of the symbols of the Soviet era and now runs a semi-Soviet state while calling it a democracy. Anyone wanting a glimpse into the current Putin maneuvers will be served by reading this for background.

Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House by Peter Baker, The New York Times White House Correspondent, is considered the definitive study of the Bush 43 administration. It is a long and difficult read but an important book that ought to be read. There are many very lengthy passages on the process as Bush was making decisions. He was deliberative and there is a lot of detailed discussions with his advisers, SecDef, Sec State etc. I don't know that you need to read these in great detail but it does give you a feel for how Bush made decisions and he was decisive. He was of great integrity and did what he thought was right despite the politics. In the end you come away with a personal feeling about Bush. He was of great humanity, kind, caring, sensitive to others and finally emotional. The sight of a wounded soldier brought tears to his eyes. Whatever you feel about his politics he is a great man.

I received Days of Fire as part of a Goodreads giveaway.

Peter Baker takes on the oft-speculated relationship between George W. Bush and Dick Cheney during their professional careers. The narrative is well-balanced and gives insight into two figures that easily fall prey to caricature (and I'm speaking as an anti-Bush administration liberal), and the amount of research and interviews Baker must have undertaken are truly impressive. Depending on your political persuasion, you will probably find some parts easier reading than others, but Baker effectively points out the good and bad in Bush, Cheney, and other figures in the administration.

I thought a lot of attention was paid to the Iraq War, which makes sense as it's arguably the central issue of the Bush presidency (and the Bush-Cheney relationship), but I would have liked to hear more about the conservative social agenda pursued by the administration.

Recommended.

Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House by Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent for The New York Times, who has an eye and ear on the many goings-on during the Bush administration, is no child's play. A tome of over 800 pages, it is an arduous journey through the turbulent eight years of the Bush presidency, and it is a book which many readers may not read through to the end unless they are staunch supporters or strong critics.

However, this assumption is not based on content but merely on the length of the book. Content is far more fascinating and riveting than most people have painted of the Bush administration. Days of Fire explores their tumultuous relationship, compelling decisions that drive the presidency, the agenda thrust upon them by September 11 terrorist attack and many other aspects.

George Walker Bush was a president many chose to hate. "Mission Accomplished!" will never be erased from memory. But Baker has painted a picture of a presidency whose agenda was hijacked by circumstances that were beyond his control. You may hate or love him but once you read Days of Fire you'll understand his actions and get to know him better as a person. But this book is not just about Bush it is also about Richard Bruce Cheney. And together, they formed a partnership whose decisions impacted American way of life even today.