Reading a Rachel Maddow book, like watching her show on MSNBC, is like reading a prosecutor’s brief before the trial begins. She puts together the evidence, creates a story arc showing how the crime was committed and then clearly and precisely points to the defendant as the only possible suspect capable of carrying out the crime. Moreover, as a PhD in political science from Oxford, she knows how to do research. Her research is an additional thirty-six pages beyond the text, and for good measure she included an index. So it’s easy to check her sources, if you choose to follow at the conclusion of the book.

Her suspect(s) in the new book Prequel are Americans who took actions to turn the country into a fascist state under the influence of Nazi Germany. True to her form, she presents a compelling case, including calling out Congressmen and Senators involved in efforts to support the Nazi regime during the 1930’s and 40’s or at the very least keep the US out of the war. As a long time teacher of history in public school I was shocked to read about this episode in American history. I felt like I should have known.

Many historical books are written for their own time, not the time the subject was set in. Maddow follows this tradition by writing about American fascism in a time when we can see a resurgence of authoritarian and fascist sentiments. Donald Trump uses lines and chapters from the fascist frequently. Sometimes the press calls these out, sometimes not.

If you have watched her show you know she can put together a good narrative. In the opening chapter introduces a theme that she continually returns to throughout the book, even to the point of returning to the players in that opening scene at the close of the book. In the middle she drives home her expose about congressman using the franking privilege to distribute Nazi propaganda to Americans. How could congressman use the free postage of the franking priviledge to distribute content paid for by the Hitler government and printed and mailed at US government expense with a clean conscience? It is nearly unbelievable that the court case to prosecute the offenders was dropped by the Department of Justice, even when they had the facts for convictions.

Actions taken on both sides of the fascist action in the 1930’ and 40’s shed light on current actions to prosecute a former chief executive in areas where he misused the electoral system and colluded with others to overthrow the government. Added to the statements he continues to use that could have or were uttered by mid-century fascist leaders reveal a remnant within the American population that is willing to give up their rights in order to live in an authoritarian society.

Do Americans have the resiliency to weather this assault on democracy? In handing absolute immunity to the executive in Trump v. United States the Roberts court has shown the greatest disregard for the Constitution since the Dred Scott decision in 1857. Can we survive this assault on the great American experiment?

Rachel Maddow gives us a peak into a past crisis to reveal both the depth of authoritarian desire and to reveal a measure of American resiliency. She shines a light on a past crisis to reveal both the depth of authoritarian desire by some members of society and to demonstrate American resiliency. While Maddow writes a warning to the American public she also reassures us that if we choose, we can weather the Trump storm like we did the fascist movement from the last century. But this is like the brief, unlike a real court case, objections, additional witnesses, and the presentation by the other side are left out. Is this a warning or reminder? I’ll let you decide.