I don't get it. When George W. Bush did the things Barack Obama is doing, he was vilified. Law professors howled in outrage, calling him a "war criminal" and a "fascist." (One particularly creepy law professor referred repeatedly to "Bush and his bestiary of madmen.") The American Philosophical Association issued a resolution condemning the war in Iraq. The ACLU filed lawsuits. Newspaper editorialists, op-ed columnists, and assorted television pundits warned that our civil liberties were gravely and imminently endangered.
Why is Obama not vilified? Either the vilification of Bush was unjustifed, in which case the aforementioned ideologues should issue an apology to him forthwith, or Obama should get the same treatment as Bush. Then again, this presupposes that Bush's critics are principled. They aren't, of course. They were driven by hatred and by bald political calculation. Now that they have a president to their liking, they remain silent.
It is the job of a philosopher to identify and publicize inconsistency. Where are the philosophers? Why are they not criticizing the inconsistency of Bush's critics? Oops! I forgot. Most philosophers were themselves critics of Bush. To condemn inconsistency, therefore, is to condemn themselves. Philosophy is in a bad way when most of its practitioners put politics above principle.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 