Prequel
By Rachel Maddow
Publisher: Crown
The MSNBC host details a campaign to overthrow the U.S. government and install authoritarian rule prior to and during our involvement in World War II.
Review by By The Books Reviewer
Rachel Maddow's "Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism" is a disjointed and alarmist account that purports to uncover a clandestine network of American fascists in the pre-World War II era. Maddow's narrative is riddled with hyperbole and lacks the rigorous analysis expected of serious historical scholarship.
The book's central thesis—that a sophisticated and well-funded campaign aimed to align the United States with Nazi Germany—is tenuous at best. Maddow relies heavily on sensationalist anecdotes and fringe figures, such as George Sylvester Viereck and William Dudley Pelley, to construct a narrative that overstates the coherence and influence of these groups. ([publishersweekly.com](https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780593444511?utm_source=openai))
Furthermore, Maddow's writing style is marred by a penchant for wisecracks and an overbearing tone that undermines the gravity of the subject matter. This approach detracts from the credibility of her arguments and suggests a lack of respect for the reader's intelligence. ([bookmarks.reviews](https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/all/prequel-an-american-fight-against-fascism/?utm_source=openai))
The book also suffers from a lack of engagement with existing scholarship. Maddow appears to cherry-pick sources that support her alarmist narrative while ignoring works that offer a more nuanced understanding of the period. This selective use of evidence raises questions about the book's reliability and scholarly integrity. ([reason.com](https://reason.com/2023/10/31/rachel-maddows-prequel-is-a-deceptively-framed-history-of-the-radical-right/?utm_source=openai))
In conclusion, "Prequel" is a sensationalist and poorly executed work that fails to provide a credible or insightful analysis of American fascism. Readers seeking a serious examination of this topic would be better served by consulting more rigorous and balanced studies.
Final recommendation: Not recommended.
Recommendation: Not recommended.
written on: 5/15/2025