There are a number of questions that come to mind as I read this book.
1.) Who is Wolf writing for? Although she describes the person who inspired her to write it, the book must by necessity appeal to larger audience. The impression I get is that she is writing for a segment of the population that is already concerned with the direction that the United States is headed, but who may not be able to draw the parallels from historical evidence. In essence Wolf is preaching, to "liberals", moderate "leftists", or in more crude terms, the choir. In several instances Wolf does at times attempt to include persons of both major US partisan persuasions, her focus on the current regime at the exclusion of those prior, lends a distinct air of bias to the work which is compounded by her complete lack of attention of the issue of the private corporate stranglehold on international and domestic policy, an increasingly insidious development of the last hundred and fifty years, and I believe, a cornerstone of imperialist and fascist dogma. Thus while making great strides in laying out the evidence in implicating Bush II in an accessible and legible (as opposed to someone like Chomsky) format for potential non-intellectual activists, she fails to address possible and probable motives underlying her so-called fascist shift.
While she doesn't hesitate to draw parallels between the current regime and historical fascism, she fails to implicate previous US rulers of their crimes against the people both at home and abroad. Clearly, to a person inclined to look, our history is rife with examples of imperial tyranny; however, I think Wolf's approach rightfully treats the subject of domestic repression from the point of view of self-analysis before external criticism. These things may be nothing new in other states (and again, not really new here), but the domestic issue Wolf believes, is more immediately relevant. I believe Chomsky said something along the lines of "It's not appropriate for American intellectuals to criticize Russian policy, but for Russian intellectuals to do so, because the Russian people are in a position to do something about it." (This is not verbatim, as I cannot find the original text).
2.) What is she writing for? As I've mentioned above she attempts to remain non-partisan, but her failure to implicate previous US rulers, and her admission to having worked for the Gore 2000 campaign suggest a distinct bias that may lead one to believe she merely intends to drive people into the Democratic camp. The nature of the subject matter and her treatment within such a biased context suggest that she intends to do so through fear, a tactic that she repeatedly attributes to fascists and Bush II.
At the same time, I believe that her underlying motive is justified and well intentioned, that is to bring to the attention of potential activists the danger that looms over our collective civil liberties, and the necessity for taking action to prevent their further erosion.
The information provided is useful, and easily digested by someone perhaps less well read than Wolf herself, or someone with less capacity or experience to perform the necessary research, but again Wolf fails to suggest useful tactics for action, suggesting merely to write about these issues further and discuss them with others. Are we to use The End of America as our only resource for discussion, or are we to somehow understand after reading it, how to do the research, and find the information, an assumption I find ludicrous considering that even Wolf herself admits that this information is often barely reported even in liberal media and even completely suppressed. Or perhaps Wolf is writing for "armchair" activists, those economically comfortable enough to feel vindicated by purchasing her book and having the luxury of non-productive time to read it over a latte and furrow their brows with mild concern. Perhaps that is Wolf's own purpose, to join in the trendy Two Minutes Hate and vindicate herself by writing it.
I don't think that is the case, and while I can be highly critical of this book, I think it has definite merit. As I have said, it lays out some concrete facts, with citations, in average-user-friendly verbiage, that point towards a dangerous (longstanding) trend in US domestic policy. It is a starting point, if somewhat myopic for budding activists and political intellectuals, and deserves credit for at least attempting to put something usable in the hands of those inclined to use it, something which in my limited experience there is far too little of.
