Great OP, but one I think misses some fairly key conceptual issues.
For instance, where you talk about a lack of expertise in those other fields - well, those people have no expertise in foreign policy, let’s use as eg, and so the circle continues. I suggest a political philosopher is at least going to be live to this and, if honest, will note their shortcomings or at least put forward justifications for their statements (perhaps relying on those other experts).
The job of synthesis is usually what’s going on in any arena that isn’t single-issue.
The argument about history is also, I think, quite obviously misplaced. Yes, we’ve run history once (and it’s not done). That doesn’t say much for the fact that (using your example) every attempt to instantiate communism has caused untold misery where it has been done. We are more than welcome to assess that data on it’s merits and reject Communism (if we’re that way inclined).
The issue is that, to your point, you can also look at history through a critical lens the other way and blame everything else (i use blame here plainly, not as a disparagement) for the failure of some idea or other. And while that rarely moves me, its totally legit.
When it comes to ethical discussion, you’re right, but most people implicitly believe in an objective ethical position such as “murder is obviously wrong”. No examination required. When examination is done, people tend to rely on facts to justify an ethical position - puppies suffer when you kick them, so don’t. But there’s far more to that chain of reasoning. It’s just super uncomfortable to realise there’s no way to ground your ethical stances in anything but a loosely-held set of systemic beliefs.
As far as I know the question of the legitimacy of institutions like states is a big part of political philosophy. This definitely isn’t a debate over empirical facts but more akin to ethics so this doesn’t go into any of your categories so it’s something we might discuss? am I missing something?
No, not missing anything. That’s exactly my point. Questions such as these are within the purview because they do not rely on adjudicating experts from external fields. My point it that very rarely do you actually see that kind of discussion forming part of the analysis of political events. You see it a lot in political philosophy proper (by which I mean the academic discipline), but oddly it doesn’t seem to pull across into political discussion.
For instance, where you talk about a lack of expertise in those other fields - well, those people have no expertise in foreign policy,
I was including expertise in foreign policy as a relevant field. My point is that we can’t adjudicate over fields in which we’re not expert.
a political philosopher is at least going to be live to this and, if honest, will note their shortcomings or at least put forward justifications for their statements (perhaps relying on those other experts).
My point is, the nature of the justifications. They might well justify their position based on coherence, consistency etc. What I find actually happens (and we have examples right here on this forum) is they justify their position based on the ‘truth’ of what one expert says despite knowing there are other experts who dispute that conclusion. It’s that ‘weighing of experts’ I’m pointing out as illegitimate, not any form of justification.
When it comes to ethical discussion…
You’ve misunderstood my point about ethics. It’s not that the discussion is about ethics, it’s that it claims to be when it is not. I’m highlighting a poor tactic I’ve seen quite a lot in political discussion - to frame something as an ethical dispute when it is, in reality, a disagreement over facts.