By The Book Reviews

Review by By The Books Reviewer

"Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House" by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes purports to offer an insider's look into the tumultuous 2020 U.S. presidential election. However, this book is a glaring example of how political narratives can be skewed to fit a particular agenda, leaving readers with a lopsided and superficial understanding of a pivotal moment in American history.

Allen and Parnes, seasoned political reporters, have previously demonstrated their ability to dissect complex political campaigns. Yet, in "Fight," they seem to have abandoned any pretense of objectivity. The book's myopic focus on the Democratic Party's internal dynamics comes at the expense of a comprehensive analysis of the broader political landscape. For instance, the authors mention "Gaza" a mere seven times, exclusively in the context of "lost votes," completely ignoring the geopolitical implications and the Republican Party's stance on the issue. This omission is not just an oversight; it's a deliberate narrowing of perspective that does a disservice to readers seeking a holistic understanding of the election.

Furthermore, the treatment of significant figures like Elon Musk and Stephen Miller is cursory at best. Miller, often regarded as a dominant policy-oriented figure in the Trump administration, is given scant attention, reducing his complex role to a mere footnote. This lack of depth is emblematic of the book's overall approach: a superficial recounting of events that fails to engage with the substantive issues at play.

The prose itself is another point of contention. Rather than providing a balanced narrative, the authors' writing veers into hagiography, particularly in their portrayal of Donald Trump. This "coronation" style not only undermines the credibility of the work but also alienates readers who expect rigorous journalism rather than partisan cheerleading.

Critics have not been kind to "Fight." Sam Tanenhaus, writing for The Washington Post, lambasted the book for its narrow focus and lack of critical engagement with the election's broader context. Such critiques are not mere nitpicking; they highlight fundamental flaws that render the book more of a political pamphlet than a serious work of journalism.

In conclusion, "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House" is a disappointing and ultimately uninformative read. Its partisan slant, superficial analysis, and lack of critical engagement with key issues make it a poor resource for anyone seeking to understand the complexities of the 2020 election. Readers would be better served by seeking out more balanced and in-depth accounts of this critical period in American politics.

Recommendation: Not recommended.

written on: 5/1/2025