The rhetoric of rhetoric

Much has been said in the past week about the tenor of our nation's civic discourse.  Early editorials and punditry placed some of the blame for the Arizona shootings on the tone of that discourse, especially remarks coming from conservatives.  Yesterday's remarks by Sarah Palin and speech by President Obama both addressed the issue of the civility and freedom of our speech, as well.

Bloggers on the left and right have chimed in, many providing clear rationales for their side's take on the issue.  One of the more restrained blog entries I found came from NYT politics blogger Michael Shear.  His post discussed the nature of Obama's and Palin's rhetoric, drawing out both the differences and similarities in their treatment of the issue, intimating that we'll see more of the contrasts in the coming year, as the next presidential election cycle ramps up.

Americans, for the most part, seem to think that there's been unhelpful politicking in response to the tragedy.  A Gallup poll Tuesday found that a majority of Americans think the issue of uncivil rhetoric wasn't a factor in the shooting, but is instead a wedge issue designed to make conservatives look bad.  Yet the poll also found "they are inclined to believe all major U.S. political groups are going too far in using inflammatory language to criticize their opponents."


So what, realistically, should be done about this?  Is it the nature of politics itself, as one conservative commentator (above) seems to imply?  Or has some appropriate limit been crossed, as others are claiming?  Or perhaps we're just expecting too much of politicians to begin with.  What do you think?