Puh, yeah right.
As much as they both revealed their power-levels, and as much as both wrote endlessly about political philosophy, by virtue of being academics and publishing books at all they hid their power-levels and never wrote about political philosophy. Sometimes academics can get away with speaking in particulars as applied to the present day if they’re on the left, usually though they stick with universals, allowing the reader to infer from their premises how they might be applied to the present day, otherwise they don’t seem “objective”, “professional”. All academia at the higher levels is hiding one’s power-level in this sense. So you will probably read Rosen and think “How could anyone hide their power-level less??” — then, try to use his ways of thinking to think about contemporary politics, and you’ll get the picture of what I’m talking about. Academics could be so much better journalists than actual journalists if they didn’t have to do this.