on rhetoric, violence, and responsibility

The Atlantic suffers badly from standard TDS, but I agree with them here in Jonathan Chait's essay (with caveats). 

Trump talks rough and crazy at times, so that certainly contributes. Trump uses a ton of hyperbole and that's tough on literalists and provides ammo to cynical politicos (who are often demagogues and/or striving for power) to stir the pot further. 

Chait is correct about "tyrant". (These things are on a spectrum, but tyrant is mild. See also: the silliness of the "Kings" movement/rhetoric.) But Chait underplays the repeated/long-standing Nazi/Hitler references. (If Trump is akin to Hitler, then assassination is quite reasonable.) Chait also ignores the prominent wing in his own tribe that equates words with violence, flattening norms here and indirectly promoting violence. 

So, yes and no. Again, it's easier for "both sides" to point fingers. Both obviously bear some responsibility-- as necessary and perhaps sufficient conditions for where we find ourselves politically today. How much is debatable. But when you hear folks deflecting most/all blame, they have (or are selling) a tilted/unrealistic view of the world.