A new biography of Harry Reid has hit bookstores, and the early reviews tell you everything you need to know about how the mainstream media views power politics. The book celebrates Reid as a scrappy fighter who “remade the rules” and “showed Democrats how to fight.”
But it really shows how one man’s hunger for power helped destroy the Senate as a functioning institution and inadvertently paved the way for the conservative Supreme Court majority we have today.
The Author Who Can’t Hide His Admiration
Before we dive into Reid’s record, conservatives need to understand something critical about this biography. The author, Jon Ralston, isn’t exactly an objective observer.
When Reid died in 2021, Ralston wrote an obituary that reads more like a fan letter than journalism. He called Reid “the master of the Senate and the king of Nevada” who “stands alone.” Those are the words of someone who views his subject with awe.
Ralston claims in his obituary that “I come not to praise Reid” but then immediately declares that Reid “changed history” multiple times and calls him “the most powerful man in the history of Nevada politics.” He describes feeling “lucky to have spent hours with him” and praises Reid’s “strategic brilliance.”
But, buyer beware: Reid personally asked Ralston to write this biography.
The two men had what Ralston describes as a “fraught relationship” for decades. Reid even cut Ralston off for years after critical columns about Reid’s children. Then Reid summoned him to his Bellagio office and offered unlimited access to his private papers, his family, and his staff.
This is classic Reid. Control the access, control the narrative. Reid built his entire career on understanding power dynamics and using leverage. He leveraged access to his own story the same way he leveraged everything else.
When your subject hand-picks you after years of punishing unfavorable coverage? The power dynamic is already set. Ralston got his access. Reid got his book.
The Nuclear Option That Keeps On Exploding
Let’s start with Reid’s biggest legacy, one the book reportedly treats as just another tactical move in his political playbook.
In November 2013, Reid pulled the nuclear option, eliminating the 60-vote filibuster threshold for most judicial nominees. Republicans at the time warned him he would regret it.
Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor that Democrats would regret the decision:
“a lot sooner than you think.”
McConnell wasn’t bluffing. When Republicans regained control in 2017, they extended Reid’s precedent to Supreme Court nominees. That move allowed President Trump to appoint Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett with simple majority votes.
Ralston reveals in interviews about the book that Reid had no regrets about this decision.
Ralston said:
“Not even a scintilla of a regret.”
According to one of Reid’s key staffers, the reason is simple:
“Let’s face it, he thought Hillary Clinton was going to be the president. It never occurred to him that Trump would win.”
Think about that. Reid destroyed a century of Senate tradition based on the assumption his party would stay in power. When that assumption proved wrong, conservatives got three Supreme Court justices.
Reid’s response? No regrets. The only thing he ever regretted, according to Ralston, was voting for the Iraq War.
This perfectly captures the problem with Reid’s approach to politics. He didn’t blow up Senate norms because he thought it was the right thing to do. He did it because he thought he could get away with it.
He gambled that Democrats would control the Senate and White House for the foreseeable future. He lost that bet and didn’t care about the collateral damage.
When the Ends Always Justify the Means
The early reviews tell you everything you need to know about how this book frames Reid’s behavior.
Publishers Weekly notes that:
“Ralston paints Reid as, above all, wryly self-aware of his own willingness to bend his principles to make progress.”
This framing is merely a polite euphemism for a lack of core principles. Where the review finds “self-awareness,” a more accurate description would be shameless opportunism. We should not label the constant abandonment of convictions for political gain as “complicated” or “paradoxical.” We should call it what it is: unprincipled.
According to the book, Reid once said:
“Vengeance is in my soul.”
He falsely claimed during the 2012 campaign that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes in ten years. When asked about lying later, Reid essentially shrugged and said Romney didn’t win, did he?
This is the behavior of someone who believed power was more important than truth, more important than fairness, and more important than institutional norms that protect everyone.
The Machine Politics Nevada Deserves Better Than
The book reportedly details how Reid built a political machine that turned Nevada blue. Conservatives should ask themselves what that really means. It means patronage. It means using government power to reward friends and punish enemies. It means the kind of old-school machine politics that Americans thought we’d moved beyond.
One of Reid’s closest friends, lobbyist Harvey Whittemore, went to prison in 2013 for funneling $133,400 in illegal campaign contributions to Reid’s campaign. The Los Angeles Times documented how Reid used his office to advance Whittemore’s business interests.
All four of Reid’s sons worked at one time for Whittemore’s law firm. Reid’s son Leif served as Whittemore’s personal attorney and represented Whittemore throughout the Coyote Springs development project. When the EPA initially refused permits, Reid personally contacted the EPA administrator. The permits were approved.
Reid’s office said his behavior was “legal, proper and appropriate.” Maybe it was legal. But the book’s promotional material ignores these ethical questions entirely.
Instead, it promises an “invaluable study of how political power is amassed, wielded and maintained.” Reid’s tactical brilliance is framed as a virtue; essentially dressing up what looks like corruption as political sophistication.
What Conservatives Should Take From This
The Reid story matters because it shows what happens when one party decides that winning is more important than how you win. The nuclear option didn’t just change Senate rules. It fundamentally changed how the Senate operates. It made the institution more partisan, more bitter, and less able to forge the compromises that make democracy work.
Reid’s defenders will say Republicans blocked Obama’s nominees unfairly. Maybe they did. But the solution to partisan obstruction isn’t to blow up the rules. It’s to win elections and convince voters that your ideas are better. Reid chose the shortcut, and we’re all living with the consequences.
The book’s title promises to show how Reid “showed Democrats how to fight.” Instead, Reid showed that institutional norms are obstacles to be demolished when they stand in your way. That truth is negotiable when power is at stake. That the other side isn’t opponents to be debated but enemies to be destroyed.
Conservatives should view this book not as a celebration of political genius but as a warning. When one side tears down the guardrails, everyone eventually goes over the cliff. Reid started that process. The Senate we have today, dysfunctional and partisan, is the Senate Harry Reid built.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
