From a reader:

Jonah,
K-Lo posted this morning about Obama and the Time cover story on Lincoln, and there is a crucial point on which I think you will be sympatico.
Note this sentence from the teaser to the Time story:
> Only now are historians discovering the personal and
> political depth of the leader who saved the nation.
So, not until our uniquely enlightened moment of 2005 have historians, and the journalists who cover them, been able to approach the figure of Lincoln fairly and thoroughly. Hmmph. That’s news to a lot of us in the scholarly community.
Such an expression of mindless, smug now-ism provides me all the excuse I need to ignore the latest issue of Time…as I do every week.
Note also that Obama’s comments are steeped in the same now-ist prejudice. They represent the near-universal way of looking at the world in his circles: no historical figure possessed of incorrect views or personal practices, on matters of race and gender and sexuality–as defined by left-liberals since about five minutes ago–can be openly and fully embraced. Not Washington, not Jefferson, not Lincoln…no matter what cornerstones they may have laid, upon which our contemporary liberties have been built.
Working in academia as I do, I find this attitude to be a continual stumbling-block and frustration. It is an especially big problem for those of us dedicated to the cause of rescuing the traditional study of history and politics. Has someone out there done the intellectual spade-work needed to mount a solid counterattack to this? (And if not, can the right people be encouraged them to work with frustrated foot-soldiers like me in doing so?)
Cheers,