I realize that it is proper etiquette to respond to posts in the comments section, but I feel compelled to offer these thoughts on the vacuous nature of civility as a virtue. Basically I agree with Bob Schwartz who wrote in response to David's post that civility is "subterfuge" used to coerce the other side to agreement. Essentially Obama is saying, "Come on Republicans, just be reasonable and pass the health care legislation." While that is a very "civil" statement, it is far from an argument. It's rhetoric parading as rationality.The fact of the matter is that Washington has replaced proper passionate debate over what constitutes a just society with civil procedure. C-span gives you a perfectly soporific pageant of civil rhetorical presentation, which remains completely conventional even as it tries to sound blustery and full of pathos. Actual reasoned argument tries to dismantle the false presuppositions of the interlocutor to reveal the shaky ground on which her conclusion rests. It is, in fact, not about finding common ground, but it is about showing that somebody's ground simply is not there.For example, I can have a perfectly civil and "reasonable" discussion with a racist about human rights. I can establish that his conclusions follow from his premises and that it is perfectly reasonable that he holds the position he does. It's just that at the end of the day he is wrong. It's not that I think he's wrong, I know with every fiber of my being that he's wrong, and I will do what I need to do to make sure his false conclusions are not inflicted on the public. Now, of course, it would be nice if I could inspire a conversion of heart that would undo the years of socialization and life experience that have led him to have the basic view of the world that he does, but the demands of justice are often too urgent to wait on divine intervention.Similarly, there are some in our polity who take it as fundamental that the poor are poor because of what they have or have not done, and that in the absence of constraints on their action, they have the basic ability to provide for their own welfare. Basically, there are those who don't believe that there are institutional injustices, only personal failings. That is false and foundational. There is no common ground between that position and the idea that some social structures are intrinsically unjust. So, we can have a civil discussion in which we agree to disagree and do nothing, while congratulating one another on the relative lack of actual or metaphorical bloodshed in our exchange. Or, one of us can decide that there is actually an injustice going on, and that the other, while perfectly rational, is in fact wrong, and that people ought to be protected from the erroneous and disastrous conclusions of the other.So, I submit, civility is completely vacuous as a measure of the quality of a political system. The real indicator is the level of concern for justice that is displayed. And by that measure Obama seems just as guilty as Bush of caring more about being perceived as rational and consensus minded than being just. And in that way, reason has become more enamoured with the beauty of its own machinations than it is with the Beauty toward which it should strive. Thus, this plea for civility is nothing more than turning means into ends by a kind of epistemological narcissism. That is how civility becomes an idol.