On Friday's Morning Joe, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough lauded The New Yorker editor David Remnick for an article he published excoriating Donald Trump supporters immediately after the former President's election in 2016.
The frequent MSNBC guest then compared the 1/6 Capitol riots to "climate change" allegedly leading to natural disasters after decades of the U.S. not taking the issue seriously.
Invoking Remnick's online rant against Trump supporters from 2016, Scarborough cued up the liberal journalist: "I always talk about your extraordinary insights following Donald Trump's election in the early hours the morning after that election. I'm curious what your thoughts are this morning after seeing everything that unfolded yesterday on the one-year anniversary of January the 6th."
Remnick complained about the lack of response to global warming alarmism as he began:
Well, I'm reminded of the late eighties when people like the scientist James Hanson or the journalist Bill McKibben warned the world that climate was changing in a catastrophic direction, and they were ignored. They were laughed off. And we are now in the situation that we are, and it's going to cost us, at best, trillions of dollars to even ameliorate, much less reverse this trend that's going to effect us all in ways that we can barely imagine.
He went on to predict waves of assassinations and other acts of violence in a hypothetical "civil war" in the U.S. Garnering agreement from Scarborough, the liberal journalist concluded:
So I think the notion of democracy being in peril, why should we be exempt? Why should the United States be exempt? This is a trend all over the world. We just happen to have a much deeper, richer institutional experience that helps us -- that there are guard rails that range from law enforcement to the law, most importantly. The Democratic party is not acting in an anti-democratic way. They're all flawed institutions, mind you, but the threat is severe, the threat is real, and if we ignore it, as we've ignored warnings of the late eighties and nineties about climate change, then we face the whirlwind, I believe.
The piece that Remnick posted on November 9, 2016, consisted of a hysterical reaction to Trump's election. The article began:
The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism. Trump's shocking victory, his ascension to the Presidency, is a sickening event in the history of the United States and liberal democracy.
He soon added: "It is impossible to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety."
And that was just the beginning of the ranting article that claimed Trump supporters had behaved "foolishly" on Election Day. MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell read from the article on his show later the same day.
This episode of Morning Joe was sponsored in part by Ensure. Their contact information is linked.
Transcript follows:
Morning Joe
January 7, 2022
7:17 a.m. Eastern
JOE SCARBOROUGH: I always talk about your extraordinary insights following Donald Trump's election in the early hours the morning after that election. I'm curious what your thoughts are this morning after seeing everything that unfolded yesterday on the one-year anniversary of January the 6th.
DAVID REMNICK, THE NEW YORKER: Well, I'm reminded of the late eighties when people like the scientist James Hanson or the journalist Bill McKibben warned the world that climate was changing in a catastrophic direction, and they were ignored. They were laughed off. And we are now in the situation that we are, and it's going to cost us, at best, trillions of dollars to even ameliorate, much less reverse this trend that's going to effect us all in ways that we can barely imagine.
Yesterday, a speech was given by the President of the United States that might even have been belated, and we may even want to hear it sooner, but it was a strong speech. But it can't end there. The question is: Who's listening? If it's just confined to, you know, one half of the nation, then we're in trouble. When we were kids, we were told, you know, the Constitution was a perfect document and it would save us and the law would save us in every way. What's been proven here yet again historically -- and Jill can talk to this more deeply -- is that people matter and leaders matter as well. And people who are in positions of persuading have enormous influence and power.
I just published a column in which I talked to somebody I believe you did, too, which is Barbara Walter, this warning of civil war, which some people think is inflammatory and scaremongering and all the rest. And to me it's a very useful, necessary warning, because a civil war would not mean blue versus gray and Gettysburg and all the rest, but it would mean a prolonged period in which small militias and groups of extremists -- there's an assassination here -- there's a storming of a state capitol there -- there's a plot against a governor of Michigan to kidnap her because there's a policy that people don't like. That kind of undermining of American democracy is not only very possible -- we've seen examples of it, most greatly exemplified by January 6.
So I think the notion of democracy being in peril, why should we be exempt? Why should the United States be exempt? This is a trend all over the world. We just happen to have a much deeper, richer institutional experience that helps us -- that there are guard rails that range from law enforcement to the law, most importantly. The Democratic party is not acting in an anti-democratic way. They're all flawed institutions, mind you, but the threat is severe, the threat is real, and if we ignore it, as we've ignored warnings of the late eighties and nineties about climate change, then we face the whirlwind, I believe.
SCARBOROUH: Yeah, we certainly do...
