I saw that too. I can't rembember what I said about Rawls, but one of my kids queried me when he died and I wrote the below:
John Rawls died at age 82 in November of 2002. Many noted his passing with an outpouring of praise and remembrance. Professor Rawls retired as Chairman of the Philosophy Department at Harvard University. It took him 20 years to write his first book, A Theory of Justice. The book, published in 1971, was an instant success and sold over 200,000 copies. Since its publication, over 5000 books or articles reference this one book. Professor Rawls published other books including Political Liberalism (1993), The Law of the Peoples (1999), Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2000) and, finally, his Collected Papers (2001edited by Samuel Freedman). Shortly before his death, Barbara Herman edited and published his Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Many believe Professor Rawls was the preeminent philosopher of his generation. President Clinton gave him the prestigious Medal of Freedom.
Rawls wrote for experienced philosophers and other intellectuals. Fortunately, his theories have been so popular that many have documented his positions in clear and concise English. Before Rawls began writing, utilitarianism was the reigning discipline when it came to social justice. Utilitarianism is an ethical principle that states an action is right if it maximizes happiness for not only the person but also everyone affected by this act. An alternative, but not altogether correct definition of utilitarianism is the "greatest good for the greatest number." The problem for utilitarianism is that it did not take into account the needs and interests of minorities. Rawls also believed the liberty of individuals was of secondary importance compared to the interest of the majority.
What Rawls did was to take utilitarianism and Kant's categorical imperative to arrive at a unique definition of justice. Kant's categorical imperative is, "Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never as a means. Not treating people as means is a crucial feature of Rawl's theories.
Rawls's theory has two facets. First, each individual has a right to the most extensive liberty compatible with the same liberty for others. Second, social and economic inequalities are just only to the extent they serve to promote the wellbeing of the least advantaged.
How and why could people accept these as just and necessary? Rawls proposes a "veil of ignorance" such that each person must select rules to live by without knowing their future income, intelligence and sex. Rawls called this the "original position." These theories protect the least fortunate. In the "original position" the public can reason things out only by avoiding religion or philosophy. Since things are now reasoned without individual passion and interests, the conclusions are above reproach and debate: they are now a given.
The outcome of Rawls's theories is exactly what the liberal Democratic Party believes --re-distribution of power and wealth with a strong belief in individual liberties. Rawls in his later writings also permits religious beliefs to continue even if they are contrary to the decisions made in the original position. He is also less inclined to redistribute wealth between nations than he in his own country.
From my conservative point of view, Rawls convinced the elites that it is simple and unquestionable justice to take from the majority and give to the minority. Indeed, we now judge society on these premises and there is no debate possible as to their necessity. Further, inequality is relative rather than absolute. For example, if a person enjoys a good standard of living but he sees others with Mercedes Benzes and Swiss watches, then he is still poor and victimized. This simply states the poor will always be with us and transferring wealth and power is an unending chore.
The liberal Democratic Party (Non-Marxist Socialists) believes in egalitarianism regardless of individual responsibility and effort. Further, by setting egalitarianism as the sovereign value they eliminate other values that are crucial for a successful society. To them, their beliefs are just, based on reason and eternal truths. If their egalitarian policies are challenged or refuted, liberals sometimes resort to angry, vituperative outbursts rather than factual debates. Recently, for example, Garrison Keillor made a fierce, demeaning ad hominem attach on Senator-elect Coleman. His emotional response makes good sense if you assume he believes his views, like those of Rawls, are above question and not debatable.
I note there was a long thread on Raws on FR. A number of much smarter people than I who had taken his class claimed he was a conservative! This may be. I had great difficulty even reading part of his first book. I never tried after that. I think you have to be very smart and able to wade through a kind of writing that makes legal writing look easy.
I think Pinker bought into the Rawlsian mystery. I was disappointed. I believe, contrary to what he says, that Pinker is of a liberal persuasion albeit not altogether a utopian. IMHO the Rawls test is the litmus test for liberals.
In brief, I consider Rawls's "veil of ignorance" a sham, an impossible, guilt-tripping sham that cannot be constructed in real minds. It only works as an abstract instrument in the hands of Blank Slaters, which is why I was so disappointed to see Prof. Pinker grovel before a PC altar by referring to it favorably.
Your kids must've been very happy to get so learned an essay about Rawls. If the analyses in it are any indication, you are more than capable of digesting Rawls's cabalistic mental peregrinations. The only question is, why would you want to? ;-)