[THREAD] A few responses to @mehdirhasan. The most important thing we can do as analysts is speak to new and different audiences. The Federalist isn't radical. It's firmly on the right and reflects views a significant chunk of Americans hold, however much we may not like them https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1273105392688660480

Even if The Federalist were radical or "far-right," I'd still engage with them. A big part of my academic work is speaking to and debating audiences on the hard right, including Islamists, Salafis, Islamophobes, and right-wing populists such as Germany's AfD

I believe that very few publications are "beyond the pale" and that very few citizens are irredeemable. If issues are "unsettled"—and, by definition, if 40% of Americans disagree, then they are unsettled—they're fair game. That's a principle, and I'll never apologize for it

For example, we have a major Brookings project where we're interviewing far-right groups with explicitly anti-Muslim views. One of the goals is to understand them in their own words and to be as accurate as possible in describing what those views are https://www.brookings.edu/product/muslims-in-the-west/

As for whether a particular Federalist writer promoted "coronavirus parties," that's bad and irresponsible, but all publications publish things that are bad and irresponsible. I mean, the @nytimes literally published an oped calling for deploying the army to suppress protests

Folks who are criticizing me: It's fine if we disagree and you don't think I should've gone on the Federalist, but I'd ask you to listen to what I actually had to say first and judge accordingly. Is that too much to ask?

Right-wing publications should invite leftists to come on their podcasts and write for their magazines (many to their credit do, such as American Affairs). Leftist magazines should invite righties to write for them (to their discredit, very few do)