This is an exclusive excerpt from “Citizen: My Life After the White House.” The book will be published by Knopf on Nov. 19, 2024.
All those efforts toward a shared America are made harder when one party believes that the primary purpose of power is to hang on to it as long as you can, and when they’re in charge will try to change the rules to make that happen. When I was dealing with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America crowd in my second term, Gingrich told Erskine Bowles, my chief of staff who also led my budget negotiations, that I was a great politician but was at a disadvantage in dealing with the more militant Republicans because I wasted time and energy on efforts that didn’t increase the Democrats’ power, like restoring benefits for illegal immigrants (the term we used back then) who paid taxes but couldn’t vote. He said to Erskine, “The president really believes we should all live under the same set of rules, doesn’t he?” Erskine replied, “Yes. We think that’s what a real democracy requires.” Gingrich responded, “We don’t believe that. We think everyone we elect or appoint should first do what’s best for our party. Then we can talk about the rest.” During the Trump presidency, Senator McConnell proved that by rushing through the Barrett confirmation after stonewalling a vote on President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for more than eight months.
The most extreme example of this single-minded determination to grab and hold on to power at all costs manifested itself on January 6, the day both houses of Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. Trump’s claim to be the real winner of the race produced a large angry crowd that he whipped into a frenzy with his claims that the election was stolen from him, even though judges across the country, including some appointed by him, had quickly found the charges baseless. The judges were following the law — did all voters have an opportunity to vote and were the votes properly counted? But Trump and his supporters didn’t keep score that way. The only question that mattered to them was: Did we win?
There was a method to Trump’s madness. He’d lost Arizona by about 10,000 votes, Georgia by just under 12,000, and Wisconsin by just over 20,000. If he could have had those states’ votes overturned, the electoral vote would have been tied, sending the election to the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote, and Trump would have been reelected, despite losing by about seven million votes in the huge turnout. At least Putin’s social media efforts to get people to vote for Jill Stein or stay home didn’t go well this time. Perhaps our intelligence community had figured out how to plug at least one hole in our democracy’s dike.
As I watched the crowd of thousands make its way toward Capitol Hill on live television, I couldn’t help but think of the mayhem that had broken out in Charlottesville at the Unite the Right rally a few years earlier, and its tragic result. The January 6 crowd included professionals, business owners, police officers, and retired and serving military, all fired up by Trump’s lies and on the move to try to stop the democratic process in its tracks.
In 2017, I had written a review of Ron Chernow’s compelling biography of President Grant for The New York Times Book Review. The Charlottesville events had given relevance to Grant’s efforts during Reconstruction to establish the Justice Department and his strong support of its successful effort to dismantle the Ku Klux Klan. I wrote that, in the wake of Charlottesville, the events of Grant’s presidency seemed in many ways “as much a mirror as a history lesson.” Three and a half years later, the January 6 effort to overturn the vote count offered an even more chilling parallel.









