Howard Baker Character Analysis in Glorious Rivals
Overview
Howard Baker, the Republican senator from Tennessee and longtime Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) founder, appears in Glorious Rivals as a living example of the cross‑party cooperation the book champions. The text presents him not as a partisan warrior but as a legislator who—in the words of the Vice President at the 2012 BPC gala—afforded every “man or woman, whether a political foe or friend … the dignity they deserve.” Baker’s career frames the book’s central argument: that personal relationships and shared sacrifice, not procedural gimmicks, are the engine of effective governance.
Plot Role
Baker’s primary plot function is to serve as the honored guest of the BPC gala in the Conclusion (Chapter 10), an event that showcases the kind of mutual respect that has largely vanished from Capitol Hill. While the Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell use the same stage to blame gridlock on the Founders’ design, Baker’s presence—alongside Bob Dole—provides a quiet rebuttal: the system worked when leaders like Baker chose to work across the aisle. Earlier in the book, Baker’s reflection on his World War II generation (Chapter 1) explains why bipartisan collaboration flourished for decades after the war: “because we had all fought the war together.” That shared experience, the author argues, built a reservoir of trust that later generations lacked.
Motivations and Traits Shown Through Actions
Glorious Rivals portrays Baker as motivated by institutional loyalty and a pragmatic sense of duty rather than ideological purity. His defining trait is courage defined as following conscience despite constituent opposition. This is most clearly shown in his decision to support the Panama Canal Treaty, a move that his own party leaders and many Tennessee supporters vehemently opposed. The book presents this as “political courage” in the tradition of Washington, Jefferson, and Webster (outline, Chapter 1). Baker also displays humility: at the gala, he accepts tributes without grandstanding, and his willingness to listen is evident in the stories former colleagues tell about him. The trait of collegiality is reinforced by the fact that he co‑founded the BPC—an institution dedicated to “getting things done” when one‑party rule fails.
Chronological Arc
Baker’s arc in the book is less a personal journey than a symbolic one that mirrors the decline of congressional sociability.
| Phase | Context | Baker’s Role |
|---|---|---|
| World War II Generation | Chapter 1 (Roots of Collaboration) | Baker explains how fighting together created trust that enabled bipartisanship later. |
| Senate Career | Throughout the book’s references | He supports the Panama Canal Treaty despite intense opposition; his leadership style is contrasted with modern hyper‑partisanship. |
| 2012 BPC Gala | Conclusion | Baker is honored; his presence underscores the loss of personal relationships in Congress. |
The arc is circular: the book opens with a generational divide (WWII vs. Vietnam/Watergate), places Baker’s career in the older tradition, and closes with a celebration that feels like an elegy for that tradition. The gala itself is a moment of genuine warmth—Senator Pat Roberts leading a crowd in “Sweet Robert Dole”—but the joy is undercut by the reality that the Senate’s leaders have already dismissed the possibility of emulating Baker’s approach.
Relationships
Baker’s most important relationship in the book is with his fellow honoree Bob Dole. The gala celebrates their partnership as BPC founders and their “public careers [that] had combined to span more than a century.” Dole and Baker are portrayed as complementary figures: both revered for problem‑solving, both willing to reach across the aisle, and both capable of maintaining friendships with ideological opponents. Baker also had a close working relationship with Senator Sam Ervin during the Watergate hearings (though the book does not detail that directly), and his respect for President Carter is implied by the Panama Canal Treaty episode. The Vice President’s toast at the gala highlights a relationship pattern: Baker saw adversaries as people, not enemies.
Key Decisions and Consequences
-
Supporting the Panama Canal Treaty
- Decision: Baker backed a treaty that returned the canal to Panama, despite vehement opposition from his party and constituents.
- Consequence: It cost him political capital, but it also demonstrated that principle could trump short‑term popularity. The book cites this as an example of “political courage” and notes it was remembered at the gala.
-
Co‑founding the Bipartisan Policy Center
- Decision: After leaving the Senate, Baker helped create an institution explicitly designed to foster cross‑party negotiation.
- Consequence: The BPC becomes the venue for the gala and a symbol of the book’s thesis: that structured, private conversations can break gridlock. The center’s existence offers a counter‑narrative to the Reid/McConnell fatalism.
-
Choosing to honor Dole at the gala
- Decision: Baker agrees to be publicly fêted alongside Dole in March 2012.
- Consequence: The event becomes the book’s emotional climax—a rare instance of genuine bipartisan affection in a polarized era. It also forces a contrast with the Senate leaders who follow.
Theme / Symbol Connections
| Theme | How Baker Connects |
|---|---|
| Bipartisanship and Collaboration | Baker’s entire career is offered as proof that bipartisanship is not naive but effective. The gala is a “stark contrast to the caustic mood on Capitol Hill.” |
| Transparency vs. Deliberative Privacy | Implicitly, Baker’s trusted relationships allowed him to negotiate sensitive deals (like the Panama Canal) without every detail leaking to the press. The book later argues that too much transparency chills candor. |
| Institutional Decline and Reform | Baker belongs to the generation that worked before Watergate reforms and the commuter Congress. His presence in the Conclusion highlights what has been lost: personal connection. |
| Role of Personal Relationships in Politics | Baker is the human embodiment of the “casual intimacy” the book advocates. His WWII bond with colleagues is traced as the root of later legislative success. |
| Unintended Consequences of Reform | Baker’s generation is implicitly contrasted with the post‑Watergate reformers. The book warns that well‑intentioned transparency and ethics rules can backfire, and suggests that Baker’s era of trust was more productive despite less formal oversight. |
5 Book‑Specific Questions and Answers
1. Why does Glorious Rivals choose to honor Howard Baker at the BPC gala instead of a more recent senator?
The book uses Baker to represent an older model of congressional statesmanship that valued personal relationships over partisan victory. His generation, forged by World War II, understood that trust was a prerequisite for compromise. By putting Baker front and center in the Conclusion, the author argues that the decline in such relationships—not the Founders’ design—is the real cause of gridlock.
2. What does Baker’s support for the Panama Canal Treaty reveal about his character?
It shows political courage as defined in Chapter 1: acting according to one’s conscience even when voters and party leaders object. The book treats this as a lost virtue. The decision also reinforces the theme that Baker was willing to sacrifice immediate popularity for long‑term national interest.
3. How does Baker’s generation differ from the Watergate Babies, according to the book?
Baker’s generation had a shared crucible (World War II) that built mutual trust across party lines. The Watergate Babies, by contrast, were shaped by Vietnam and Watergate, which bred suspicion of authority. The book traces how reform movements sparked by that suspicion inadvertently reduced the private space needed for candid negotiations.
4. In what way does the gala scene foreshadow the book’s central argument?
The gala shows bipartisanship working beautifully—until Senate leaders Reid and McConnell take the stage and blame the Founders. Baker’s silent presence (and the stories told about him) implicitly rebuts that excuse. The scene thus prepares the reader for the Conclusion’s call to rebuild personal relationships rather than chase procedural fixes.
5. Is Howard Baker presented as a flawless figure, or does the book acknowledge any weaknesses?
The book does not criticize Baker directly; it uses him as a symbol of a bygone era. However, the implication is that no single leader can reverse systemic decline. Baker’s example inspires, but the Conclusion makes clear that the tools for reform must be used collectively. The book’s honest portrayal of decline prevents Baker from becoming a mere saint—he is more a marker of what was lost than a blueprint for easy restoration.