Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism

“Miss Merrill regarded the enterprise, right down to the occasional German-language-only get-togethers and Johnson’s hiring of a German manservant, Rudolph, as what we now call cosplay—overgrown boys in dress-up. Philip had ‘a weak character and [an] immature mind,’ she said. This view was widely shared among people who knew Johnson well; they described him as ‘flighty’ or ‘rather silly’ or ‘too much of a fool to worry about.’ Philip Johnson was ‘harmless,’ concluded the sheriff of the county in Ohio where Johnson grew up and kept a home.”

Throughout the book, Maddow shows that fascist and antisemitic Americans were often not taken as serious threats even as the pro-Nazi movement gained power within the US. Many of the men who Maddow highlights were regarded by people as unserious and harmless, even though they did indeed pose threats to US democracy. Here, Maddow uses modern language—cosplay—to wryly ground the passage with a relatable description.

“Then, too, there was Long’s seemingly limitless appetite for and accretion of authority. ‘A perfect democracy can come close to looking like a dictatorship,’ Huey told one reporter, ‘a democracy in which the people are so satisfied they have no complaint.’ He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1930, but insisted he could simultaneously hold on to the governorship until 1932, when he installed his chosen puppet. And why shouldn’t he? Who was going to stop him?”

Maddow uses a direct quote from Long to spell out how close Long’s reign came to dictatorship, evoking the theme of Prominent Americans Versus American Ideals, as well as the theme of The Allure of Power. She portrays Long as a complex figure, one who fulfilled his campaign promises but who nevertheless openly admitted that he had an insatiable appetite for power. Maddow’s rhetorical questions also hint at later occurrences in the book in which US officials and institutions failed to quell the rising tide of authoritarianism in the US.

“In other words, Americans had found ways—on matters of race—to use the law to justify just about anything they wanted to do. Leave the egalitarian, idealistic language on the books, but interpret that language however you need to, to justify any policy that just feels right. The Nazis were in love with this idea. It meant you didn’t have to spell out your eliminationist plans in black and white; you just needed to act on those plans, with compliant and complacent lawyers writing artfully around the worst of your intentions and with courts providing assurance that they would get what you were going for intuitively and the law wouldn’t get in your way.”

This quote underscores the theme of Prominent Americans Versus American Ideals. While stated US ideals revolve around egalitarianism, Maddow shows how the Nazis admired the way the US government enacted laws that allowed for racism. Maddow’s statement, “The Nazis were in love with this idea,” has greater impact because of its short, blunt construction and how it is couched within much longer, complex sentences.

“In blunt terms, Huey was threatening that any federal government officials coming into the state of Louisiana would risk arrest and imprisonment for doing so. It was a big F-U to FDR, and to the whole idea of the sovereignty of the U.S. government.”

Here and throughout the book, Maddow uses colloquial, modern language and injects personality into her writing. She often juxtaposes complex explanations with simplified and even humorous clarifications, as she does here with the phrase “F-U to FDR.”

“Dennis entered the field of political philosophy at an opportune moment for someone who self-identified as a ‘maverick’ and a ‘dissenter.’ The waves of economic disaster that roiled the country and the world after the stock market crash of 1929 (Dennis had prophesied the crash, according to Dennis) opened the field for radical new notions about ripping out existing political systems at their roots and remaking the world in an entirely new image.”

Maddow uses a winking tone to take a subtly critical view of Dennis. She implies that he has an overly inflated sense of self by putting the words “maverick” and “dissenter” in scare quotes and by using the phrase “according to Dennis.”

“Big as it was, Johnson’s forty-foot-high drywall podium ended up dwarfed by the competing urban landscape. When Coughlin ascended into his floating pulpit, instead of looking massive, monolithic, inspiring, he looked like an insect, a nondescript, ineffectual speck floating alone, his little hands impotently cutting the air as he spoke. The visual impact of Philip Johnson’s very first fascist building project was meh.”

While Maddow treats the larger events and themes of the book with seriousness, she often uses small moments throughout the text to delight in poking fun at fascist and antisemitic individuals. She witheringly juxtaposes Johnson’s podium with the grander spectacle of the Nazi Youth rally that Johnson attended in Potsdam. Here, she uses colorful imagery as well as slang (“meh”) to humorously criticize Johnson’s efforts.

“Pelley believed Hitlerite fascism could be replicated in America for one simple reason. Unlike Pelley’s failed spiritual movement, this new political juggernaut was fueled by the most powerful of human emotions. Love and harmony were nice and all, but for pure motive force, hate trumps. His weekly the Silver Legion Ranger provided readers with somebody to hate—the Jews, who were busy planning world domination.”

In this passage, Maddow describes the thinking of William Dudley Pelley, founder of the Silver Shirts. Throughout the book, she shows that many antisemites like Pelley—especially antisemitic leaders—adopted their beliefs for cynical, strategic reasons; in other words, they espoused antisemitism because they knew that that would rile up an audience. Elsewhere in the text, she shows that Henry Ford started disseminating antisemitism for the same reason.

“Hitler had already mulled sending some of his ‘shock troops’ to major American cities to aid in Ford’s possible run for president in 1924. When a reporter from The Detroit News showed up at Nazi Party headquarters in Munich in December 1931 to interview Hitler for her ‘Five Minutes with Men in Public Eye’ series, she was surprised to find, hanging on the wall behind Hitler’s desk, a large, framed portrait of America’s most famous antisemite. ‘I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration,’ Hitler explained to the newspaperwoman.”

This quote underscores the theme of Prominent Americans Versus American Ideals. Henry Ford is often held up as a prime example of American achievement. However, as Maddow shows throughout Prequel, he was a devoted antisemite whom Hitler personally admired.

“‘It looks to me from what I read in the papers and the information I have,’ said the German attaché, ‘that probably there is ten times more [antisemitism] now in the United States than there was in Germany before Hitler’s rise to power.’”

This quote presents a surprising and perhaps even counterintuitive fact, one that contradicts the popular belief that Americans were united in their fight against Nazism. This is echoed throughout the book as Maddow shows that, before and during World War II, antisemitism was much more widespread in the US than many people realize today.

“But a funny thing had happened on the way to the Dies Committee’s hearing room; while the committee members were all eyes left, a lot of information on un-American activities of the far right was bleeding into public view. At the same moment the conservatives would have preferred to focus on the Reds, these damn proliferating fascists in America were making themselves difficult to ignore.”

Here, Maddow uses folksy, wry, colloquial language to point out the hypocrisy of the Dies Committee. While the committee was ostensibly focused on activities that ran counter to US interests, she argues that they focused too much attention on nonthreatening, left-wing activists rather than directing their efforts toward countering the more dire threat of fascism on the right.

“All in all, Deatherage seemed pleased with his performance. But he was unmistakably perturbed that the committee did not give him a chance to identify and name all the communists working in the Roosevelt administration. He had a list of them, he explained, alphabetized. He had also cataloged and sorted the vast interlocking international Jewish communist web at work in America. With charts. These documents were in a secret hiding place, in the hills of West Virginia, and Deatherage was eager to be allowed to provide them to Chairman Dies and his cohorts. There was so much that Deatherage thought the committee should know, and he was excited to come back.”

This passage shows that George Deatherage possessed a measure of—perhaps delusional—self-confidence as he met with the Dies Committee. Even though the committee intended to investigate him and the other members of his pro-Nazi groups, he believed that they would be interested in listening to his conspiracy theories.

“Confessions of a Nazi Spy had a monthlong rolling open across the country. The impact was proof of the power of Hollywood. More than news coverage, more than law enforcement investigations, more than congressional hearings, the film industry could have a huge effect on public awareness.”

While Prequel largely focuses on politics, Maddow takes a detour in Chapter 12 to mention the movie industry. Notably, even though the larger story revolves around political actors, this chapter admits that the entertainment history had greater success than any other institution at publicizing the growing Nazi threat in the US. This is interesting in light of Maddow’s role as an individual who straddles the worlds of politics and broadcast media.

“The invasion was massive in scale, led by two thousand tanks, nine hundred bombers, four hundred fighter planes, and more than a million foot soldiers. Hitler, of course, asserted that this alarming opening act of the full-scale war in Europe was somehow an act of self-defense, that Poland was the real aggressor.”

This quote shows the extent to which the Nazi party crafted strategic lies in order to control public sentiment around the war. This stance on the invasion of Poland echoes other arguments made by Nazi propaganda throughout the US. The rhetoric always focused on how the Nazis were saviors or protectors.

“Rogge ‘doesn’t understand Brooklyn Catholic culture. And he doesn’t understand the jury, which is going to be composed of Brooklynites. Rogge is from southern Illinois, and he went to Harvard Law School, and he has no perception that the jury pool is going to lean in certain directions. His legal team was composed of lawyers who were equally deficient in understanding the culture that they were moving in. Brooklyn in the 1930s was deeply […] informed by Roman Catholicism in their anticommunism and […] kind of an endemic style of antisemitism.’”

In the text, Maddow depicts Rogge as an accomplished, intelligent, and intrepid prosecutor who nevertheless suffered two major defeats when prosecuting fascists. This passage explains one specific reason that Rogge failed to secure a conviction. It suggests that antisemitism was already widespread in the US.

“Lundeen had instituted a ‘kickback’ program in his office reminiscent of Huey Long’s rip-off of state employees in Louisiana. As a matter of public record in the federal government payroll, for instance, Miss Harriet Johnson’s salary was $150 a month. But when her check came, she had to hand back $15 in cash to Lundeen. When her reported government salary rose to $325, she had to ‘kick back’ $180 to the senator.”

This passage hints at the theme of Prominent Americans Versus American Ideals, showing an example of corruption at the federal level of government. These specific facts around Lundeen’s kickback program become relevant later in the book as Maddow reveals that he took compensation for letting Viereck use his franking privileges to mail out Nazi propaganda for free.

“The German Library of Information was mailing nearly 100,000 copies of its weekly news digest, Facts in Review, to the 1940 version of American ‘influencers’—ministers, priests, teachers, editors, elected officials.”

Here, Maddow uses a colloquial, modern-day term—influencers—to provide context. She uses this to establish the fact that the Nazi propaganda campaign within the US was targeted and strategic, aiming to reach people who had the greatest power to spread the message.

“Stokes, aware that he was both reporting on a story and witnessing part of a crime spree that was actively under federal investigation, decided to deliver the warm and smoky remainder of that evidence to the propaganda squad at DOJ, even as he rushed to file with his editor.”

Maddow uses vivid imagery to convey the determination and enthusiasm of Dillard Stokes, a reporter. The phrases “warm and smoky” and “rushed to file with his editor” evoke Stokes’ urgency.

“Hitler’s lies spread misinformation that was favorable to Germany and unfavorable to us and our allies, and sowed dissension among the American public not just about the war effort but about our own basic system of government. His very well-funded propaganda mission in the United States was twofold: to try to keep the United States from getting into World War II, and also to soften us up, to mess with us, to make us less effective as a country, by finding and exploiting what the Germans called ‘kernels of disturbance’ in the United States.”

Here, Maddow uses the plural possessive to convey a sense of unity and to situate herself as someone speaking from an American perspective. Her use of “us” and “our” casts the fight against fascism as a patriotic act. Her use of colloquial language like “mess with us” is evocative of folksy language used by politicians who want to connect with the “everyday” American.

“This much was certain: Germany had agents at work inside the United States; armed American fascists were being actively supported by the Hitler government; members of Congress were colluding with a German propaganda agent to facilitate an industrial-scale Nazi information operation targeting the American people; critical U.S. munitions plants were blowing up in multiple states. And the Justice Department, at last, was going to act to take it all apart. At least it was going to try to.”

Maddow spends much of the book presenting a web of detailed evidence. Occasionally, though, she pauses to succinctly summarize the findings, rather than simply presenting details for observation. This passage serves as an example of one such summary. By devoting much of the text to presenting evidence, she maintains a journalistic tone; when she does sum up the gravity of this evidence, her statements are all the more powerful because of the deep research that preceded them.

“The trial proceeded in fits and starts and shouts and tantrums and delaying motions and nonsensical objections, followed by ever-sterner admonitions from Judge Eicher and then ultimately fines that he levied against defense attorneys.”

Maddow describes the chaos in the courtroom. Through the use of the words “fits” and “tantrums,” she characterizes this chaos as infantile, evoking the image of the defendants as misbehaving children.

“Langer had not only provided the defendants with thousands of franked envelopes; he had provided them with thousands of copies of that two-hour speech he had made in defense of the ‘fine Americans’ on the Senate floor a few months earlier. The speech was already in the Congressional Record; so he simply made a discount price order from the Government Printing Office, at taxpayer expense, and had them delivered to Judge Eicher’s court along with the franked envelopes. Then he enlisted this weird little secretarial team of accused fascists and Nazi operatives to stuff the envelopes in the courtroom so he could mail that speech out around the country, postage paid by the U.S. taxpayer. They were working the Viereck playbook. Still. While literally in federal court.”

A detailed explanation of the scene in the courtroom, composed of longer sentences, is followed by short punchy sentences at the end of the paragraph. This difference in cadence effectively emphasizes Langer’s and the defendants’ audacity and mimics how their absurd prank interrupted the proceedings.

“This was Burton K. Wheeler’s second DOJ scalp: William Patrick Maloney back in 1943, before he could bring his sedition indictments to trial; and now Maloney’s successor, O. John Rogge, before he could release his DOJ report on sedition to the public. Attorney General Francis Biddle acceded to Wheeler’s demands the first time. Now it was Attorney General Tom Clark, as well as President Truman. Whatever else there is to say about Montana’s senior senator, the man had pull. Also, it’s worth saying, the U.S. Department of Justice is not supposed to work this way. Even a senator with Olympian influence should not be able to arrange the firing on demand of a prosecutor leading a federal investigation in which the senator himself is adversely implicated. But in this episode in American history, it happened. Twice.”

This passage hints at the theme of Prominent Americans Versus American Ideals. Maddow explicitly reiterates that this federal elected official abused his power for his own gains.

“If we’re willing to take the harder look at our American history with fascism, the truth is that our own story in this wild, uncertain twenty-first century has not an echo in the past but a prequel. For our turn in history—and for the next time this comes around, too—we have the advantage of knowing that which preceded us. The story of what it took, inside and outside the government, to stop the violent American ultra-right in the run-up to World War II—that’s a gift from the smart, brave, determined, resourceful, self-sacrificing Americans who went before us. If we learn it, and we choose it, we can inherit their work.”

While the events in the book’s final chapter end on a saddening note—revealing that Rogge’s efforts amounted to almost nothing—Maddow zooms out to situate these events as important in the context of present-day democracy. By describing the book’s story as “not an echo […] but a prequel,” she emphasizes that the book does not simply present faint reminder of current events; rather, readers can trace a line directly from the events of Prequel to modern-day fascism.