Grant Reeher interviews Dennis Patterson on the Campbell Conversations, an NPR interview show from WRVO in Central New Yorker:

[Restoring political judgment] starts with it starts with the recognition that your interlocutor is not someone who proceeds in bad faith, that in fact, people have different views of the world. It’s like the old liberal political ideal that my conception of the good is something that I get to decide, not you, not the state. And so people have different competing conceptions of the good. If you cannot proceed in a respectful conversation where you take the other person seriously, you let to make their argument, you don’t make ad hominem arguments about them, that’s the sort of thing that I think we need to do. And I think in some ways that aspect is getting a bit is getting a bit better. Because Trump is such a polarizing figure, that no one really wants to be associated with that temperament. And it’s all about temperament. If you evince disdain for people, no conversation as possible. So just at that very basic level, respect for your interlocutor is a great place to start.

John Berger of Vital Interest, the blog of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law, interviewed Dennis Patterson:

I would take issue with your premise that people are controlled in what they think. I agree with you, about the polarization. But in many ways, the polarization is more a manifestation of elite culture – both right- and left-leaning versions – than of voters. Fox isn’t a grassroots media organization based in the Midwest, after all. Nor is Fox news synonymous with populists, because remember populism is voters of both right and left who are turning on elites. Part of the reason that Jacob and I are writing this book is because we are worried about this discourse… Our discourse has basically deteriorated to the point where we can’t have a rational discussion….