The other thing mostly missing from the debate is a discussion of violence itself in the context of democracy.
Following on from my earlier main comment, I would say that the political issue at hand is not only about media and language. Underneath that it's about what are acceptable tactics for achieving political goals, specifically a question about tactics such as violence, threats of violence, and physical intimidation.
There are clearly many Americans (not a huge number, but still many) who reject the rules of pluralist civil society and democratic processes. Why that is may be worth its own thread. But the problem before us here happens when people in "the system" flirt with these uncivil factions by playing with their fantasies about armed rebellion. Whether it is an electioneering politician or a pundit with a large audience, such appeals legitimate those attitudes and tactics. The rejectionists are then encouraged by this legitimization to keep it up, or intensify it.
I think that what has many people afraid or concerned is that political violence and threats of murder, winked at by those who are supposed to be quelling it, are a personal danger in the near-term and ultimately a threat to democratic civil society and self-government.
Is it really such a good idea to appeal to people who reject pluralistic, democratic discussion? That's one way to create the proverbial monster. But how do you convince those who should already know better that they should steer clear of appealing to such factions? And what else is necessary to get U.S. civil society to step back from the brink that so many people seem to want it to leap?
I wish I had more answers. Maybe this discussion can point us toward some.
