While I am speaking my mind I would also offer advice to those in the media who claim to be giving news. Others who admit they are analyzing it are on their own. As someone who reads a lot of wire service reports I run across many items where the very tone seems to invoke "let's you and him fight." Political party spokespersons carry on dueling allegations and that gives the E-commenters a chance to weigh in. From that level all that it takes to be civil appears to be cleaning up the slurs.
This is a very old-fashioned notion, but it's worth a try. Stick to the issues. On a scale of reactionary to radical there are many slots where a person can define real interests. So I suggest that presidents, congresspersons, and other elected officials lead us in civility. To start, how about avoiding the phrase "the other side." Public policy is seldom an either/or proposition.
Issues! Try questions with suggestions of possible compromise. Should total appropriations be limited? What part of a budget may be allocated to domestic, as opposed to foreign, policy? How can existing "entitlement" programs be brought up to current needs? Which of the United States should we look to for energy, educational, defense manufacturing, etc., leadership?
When we sum up the hours we spend on finding new information on hot button issues, there is satisfaction--I assume. When we count the hours we waste on hearing the same tirades against a political department, "the Beltway" or perhaps someone else's article, what to do? Turn it off I say. Civil, I'm not sure, but honest statements count. If they really count perhaps benign neglect is honest.