An insider’s view of the global and national political scenes was provided by Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for The New York Times and best-selling author, during Warren Wilson College’s Global Impact Forum on Nov. 17 in downtown Asheville.

During the lengthy program, the only prediction by Baker that generated some murmers among the decidedly liberal audience was that he thinks, ultimately, President Barack Obama will go along with passage of the Keystone Pipeline in exchange for other environmental concessions from its proponents. Baker added that the thinking in the White House — as he perceives it through his contacts — is that the purported damage from the pipeline will not be as significant as presented by its opponents and that much more important concessions could be extracted in exchange for Obama’s support.

Also, Baker raised some eyebrows in the crowd when he said that “one Russian official said recently that we are as close to war with the U.S. as ever.... during the Cold War.”

He asked, hypothetically, if the U.S. and its allies really would be willing “to go to war with the Russians over the Baltics” — or Ukraine?

A standing-room-only turnout of 258 people, according to the official count, amazed the organizers, who noted that it was impressive, especially on a cold November night. 

The event, held at the Center for Craft, Creativity & Design, 67 Broadway St., was in WWC’s new location in its physical expansion into Asheville.

Baker joined WWC President Steven L. Solnick in a conversation about American politics in the wake of the midterm elections, international politics (including the new tensions with Russia and the war in Ukraine), the legacy of the Bush-Cheney administration and the future of journalism in the digital age.

Solnick, who became WWC’s president in 2012, is a former associate professor of political science at Columbia University, where he also was coordinator for Russian studies at CU’s Harriman Institute.

Baker was a reporter for 20 years at The Washington Post before joining The Times in 2008. He and his wife, Susan Glasser, also spent four years as Moscow bureau chiefs, chronicling the rise of Vladimir Putin. 

In an introduction of Baker, it was noted that, before covering Obama, he had covered George W. Bush and Bill Clinton in the White House. 

Solnick triggered laughter from the crowd when he thanked everyone “for coming out on a balmy … night.” 

Baker noted that he has been in Asheville before. “Anyone who covers President Obama has been to Asheville,” he said. He spoke of playing golf at, and staying in, the Grove Park Inn in North Asheville.

In a reference to the president, Solnick asked, playfully, “Is there any truth to the rumor that he’s buying retirement property here in Asheville?”

Smiling, Baker replied, “He’s also been rumored to be looking at other places ... except in eastern Ukraine.” (The crowd laughed.)

Solnick then noted that he and Baker planned to discuss global and national politics for 40-45 mins — and then field questions for 15 minutes or so.

Turning to Baker, Solnick said, “So you’re in North Carolina, and we drove through North Carolina from the airport. North Carolina is a state that’s gone totally Republican. In the last election, we were the only one of the swing states that swung. Are we early in the pendulum swing? Can we look for things to turn around?”

“People keep saying it’s the beginnng of generations of various ascendencies,” Baker replied. However, he said it would be prudent, based on history, “to be very cautious in making predictions. North Carolina is among the eight other states” that can swing the presidential election.

In naming some of the other swing states, he listed Colorado, Virginia and Iowa. He also said that “Ohio is obviously super-important, and maybe Florida... It was very compettitve between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis” for the U.S. Senate seat from North Carolina, in which the GOP’s Tillis prevailed.

Following are some other highlights of the Solnick-Baker discussions:

SOLNICK: “One school (of thought) would say that the Republican Party tamed the tea party on its way to victory” — and yet another would say “the tea party took over GOP on its way to victory.”

BAKER: “There’s no question that parties did a better job of weeding out problematic candidates” in the latest general election. “They did a better job of managing who their candidates would be and pushing out the problematic ones... They had more disciplined candidates. No doubt the Republican Party absorbed — somewhat — the tea party. (Sen. Mitch) McConnell (who is now the Senate Majority Leader) comes out and says, ‘There’s not going to be any government shutdowns,’ but (House Majority Leader) John Boehner said, ‘Well, maybe.’ So... it’s not totally clear.”

SOLNICK: Asked Baker about his assessment of Obama’s influence on the election results.

BAKER: “He (the president) felt very constrained. He felt very left out. He felt they were treating him like an anathema.”

Solnick: “As a White House reporter, how do you know if the president is really upset?”

BAKER: “The eyebrows, Steven!” More seriously, the journalist said that, to ascertain the president’s mood, “You talk to people around him (Obama). I think he felt frustrated that he was sidelined. Having said that, even the places he did go, it didn’t go very well.” He noted that Obama visited Maryland and Illinios, where the Democratic candidates lost.

“‘If you care about Obama, my policies are on the ballot’... He kind of stepped right into that... At the Democratic headquarters, they were tearing their hair out at that,” as they were wanting the Democratic candidates to run on the various issues on which, they felt, they had particularly strong stances.

SOLNICK: “Is there anything that could have been done” by Obama to have turned the election to the Democrats.

BAKER: “The stock market is as high as ever,” noting that many jobs have been created lately. Obama “thinks he’s got a good record to run on... But, on the other hand, there’s  still a lot of angst out there. Even though there’s a lot of positives, people don’t feel positive about” what is happening in the economy under the president.

SOLNICK: “Is there an element there of the Democrats realizing what the valid counter-argument to their argument is — and therefore they don’t want to make it?”

BAKER: “There is an argument to be made that if you tell people things are better, they’ll be able to convince themselves things are better... But you have to be able to sell it... When Ronald Reagan talked about ‘Morning in America,’ unemployment was still relatively high, but Reagan was able to convince Americans that things were better... When he (Obama) said the fundamentals of the economy are strong, it sure didn’t look like it” to most Americans.

SOLNICK: “Is there any doubt he’s going to sign an executive order on immigration?”

BAKER: “Nothing’s guaranteed, but it appears definite. His (Obama’s) base would just revolt if he didn’t. The real question is timing. He’d like to do it by the end of the year. The Democrats in Congress would like for him to hold off until they get some spending bills through....”

SOLNICK: “Can you explain what he’s (Obama’s) planning to do” on immigration reform?

BAKER: “There’s a real debate on whether he (Obama) has the power to do that. In one sphere, it’s President Obama vs. President Obama — a couple of years ago he said he couldn’t do that” because he lacked that authority under the U.S. Constitution. “Since then, some (U.S. Department of) Justice lawyers have said he has unassailable authority to do it... There is talk among a very small fringe of people about impeachment. His opponents will try to put in (budget) bills to limit what they see as the damage.”

SOLNICK: “Are you reasonably confident that we’re not going to be tying up” the president in the immigration issue in a way that could lead to his impeachment?

BAKER: “On a cold night in Asheville, I’d say ‘no.’ The last time (impeachment arose) was about whether President Clinton lied under oath about having sex. The argument this time would be” — on a higher level —  “a great affair of state... Should a president be a king? That would be the issue. We could have a vote of no confidence and throw him out... I don’t think we’ll have that (impeachment) happen, but I wouldn’t bet my house on that.”

SOLNICK: ”Let’s imagine the 2016 president debates.. Who’s standing there and if you’re on that panel, what question would you be asking?”

BAKER: “Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, John Kasich....”

SOLNICK: “Do you get a Mitt Romney?”

BAKER: “I don’t think so... In the past, the GOP has had a hierarchical process, with the guy who’s next in line getting it (the presidential nomination)... This time, it’s the exact opposite,” with the Democrats having a definite frontrunner in Hillary Clinton, while the Republican field appears to be wide open.

SOLNICK:  Asked what Baker would say was the top selling point in the recent election of the successful Republican candidates.

BAKER: “Quite successfully, they (the GOP candidates) could boast to voters that they are ‘not Obama.’”

 “In 2016, it’s going to be more complicated. They don’t know, right now, the dynamics of the race. You’ve got Rand Paul and not Ron Paul. He’s been the most interesting person on the Republican side. Whether that sticks or not.... I don’t know.” (He also noted that the conservative Republican establishment is wary of Rand Paul.)

SOLNICK: “Who’s going to be the ‘Not Hillary’” for the Democrats?

BAKER: “I just don’t see the messenger, right now, who has the ability to go the distance.... If she (Clinton) doesn’t run, the Democratic Party doesn’t have a ‘bench,’ so they’re in big trouble.” Thus, the Democratic establishment is telling her, rather desparately, that “‘It’s we who want you to run because we don’t know what we’ll do if you don’t run.’” In contrast, the GOP has presidential hopefuls “getting roughed up, which prepares them” well for the race ahead.

SOLNICK:  “Is it a new Cold War yet?”

BAKER: “The Cold War really was about two ideologies fighting it out on a global scale. Putin doesn’t have an ideology. And it’s not being fought on a global scale... He’s not someone — at the moment — who is challenging us for dominance on a global scale. It’s a dangerous period. We would be better off being friends with Russia than enemies.... We’re not talking global geo-thermal war.... They have the capacity to cause us a lot of trouble.... What would we do if 10,000 Russian soldiers slipped over the border into the Baltics for a weekend? We have agreements. Do we want to go to war with the Russians over the Baltics?... One Russian official said recently that we are close to war with U.S. as ever during the Cold War.”

SOLNICK: “Was there any way, given where they started, to not end up where we did (with foreign policy)? In what way should have American policy bee different?”

BAKER: “Should we have expanded NATO policy? Maybe we should have made it more of a political organization than a military organzation. Maybe we should have included Russia in NATO... Are there ways we could have made them less paranoid? Could we have brought them in more? Maybe... Some people argue that Putin has changed. I don’t think so.” (Baker referred to Putin as, ultimately, “a rational actor.”)

SOLNICK: “Let’s talk about Crimea and Ukraine...  Is there anything else we could have done” better (regarding foreign policy)?

BAKER: “President Obama was worried about irritating the Russians. Obama got on the phone repeatedly to Putin. (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel got on the phone to Putin. None of it seemed to do any good... Crimea was easy for Putin. Once in, he felt he had ownership of the situation. … He was emboldened to enter Ukraine. It looks like it will be an indefinitely frozen situation...”

SOLNICK: “Regarding Bush-Cheney — Your book  (‘Days of Fire’) is extraordinary. It was, to me, a remarkably sympathetic portrayal of George Bush. You wrote, ‘He was at his best when he was cleaning up his worst.’”

BAKER: “The line actually comes from David Frum,” a former speechwriter for Bush, and it was in reference to the fallout after Bush “sent troops to Iraq and bailed out the banks.” Despite his conservative critics, “in both cases, it seemed to work. You could argue that it was to his own neglect that led to the great crisis, for which he had to rise to the occasion.”

SOLNICK: “You quote Bush ’43 that ‘all presidents get reassessed.’ ‘Days of Fire’ is a reassessment. What do you think the reassessment will be of him (Bush) 20 years from now?”

BAKER:  “So Bush’s numbers have gone up” since he left the White House. “He’s in the 50s with his numbers — higher than Obama’s. First, he didn’t criticize his successor and he wasn’t part of the tea party,” both of which went down well with the public. “That doesn’t mean that he will go down in history in a fundamentally different way. The Iraq War is still the Big Kahuna in the room.”

SOLNICK: Asked Baker for a prediction on Obama’s legacy.

BAKER: “Look at Clinton. He had one of the worst exits. He pardoned a bunch of people,” even as he was leaving office. “Two-thirds said Bill Clinton would be most remembered for scandal — when he left office. Now, people think about the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years” — and they think that it was not such a bad presidency after all.

Baker added Obama can claim, as his legacy, that he “prevented Big Depression, got us health care. The other argument he wanted to make was: ‘I got us out of two wars.’ It depends on where Iraq and Afghanistan are (with U.S. military involvement) when he leaves office. If he gets a deal with Iran, that would be a big thing... The chance of there being a recesssion before he leaves office” is high, based on history.

SOLNICK: “Talking about journalism in this day and age. When you started, you had to file a story... nowadays, you’re tweeting, on (television’s) ‘Morning Joe,’ NPR... podcasts... Has the job of a journalist in this digital age become impossible?”

BAKER: “Yes, and we all deserve a raise. … Now, I have this ball-and-chain... I can literally file a story from a movie theater with my kid. There are tradeoffs. We are blessed, in a way. There’s more information available at our fingertips than ever before... Readers for the first time, have the opportunity to check us out” through their access to original documents over the Internet. “On the bad side, we don’t have time to ponder and think” before filing a story. “It’s a real challenge to journalism.”

SOLNICK: “So you’re working at one of the most distinguished ‘dead-tree’ newspapers and your wife is editor of Politico — one of the most distinguished websites....”

BAKER: “We’re always going to be The New York Times. We’re never going to be Politico. On the flipside, Politico is taking on some aspects of The New York Times — long (analytical) pieces... Our bread-and-butter is we’ll always be the authoritative voice to tell what it all adds up to.”

During the question-and-answer period that followed, a woman asked Baker for a prediction on the Keystone Pipeline proposal.

“He (Obama) might trade environmental impacts” to the pipeline’s proponents in exchange “for removing his objections to the project,” Baker replied. “It’s a relatively smaller thing than it’s been blown up to be.” Baker’s comments triggered murmers among some of the forum’s attendees.