ABSTRACT
Everyone agrees that civility in political argument is both good and increasingly scarce. On some accounts, civility is equivalent to conflict aversion. One is civil insofar as one is conciliatory and irenic in dealing with one's political opponents. Civility in this sense seeks to deal with disagreement by squelching its public expression. Civility is consistent with sharp tones, raised voices, and other forms of adversariality that would in other contexts be inappropriate. But our model of civility holds that name-calling, impoliteness, and hostility are to be avoided when they would obstruct or undermine properly run exchange of reasons. If civility of tone has a purpose, it is to maintain conditions under which proper argument can commence. Thus it is not itself component of proper argument. Civility so understood serves to insulate sham arguers from the kind of criticism they most deserve. But democracy's health depends upon the ability of citizens to reliably make the distinction between argument and its counterfeits.
