On the value of political understandings of the past

Rich sent me two links last week: one to a commentary by Stanley Fish on the academic (versus the political) debates over constitutionalism/originalism, and another to a review of Gordon Wood's latest book lamenting the decline of political history.  Like it or not, what we write about as historians is deeply embedded in the "culture wars" of our day.  Since this week's class is considering what makes a "good" article discussing "Revolutions in Thought and Society," it may be useful to reflect in your process journal about ideas raised in one or another of these pieces. What does it mean to you to study "traditional" political or intellectual history topics, or to bring into the conversation ideas of contemporary concern such as race?  What role do your own politics play in defining what's "important" to study, or in how you define what you do as a historian as opposed to an educated voter/conversationalist?