Some of you might actually think my view that politics is derived from more basic parts of philosophy is a little naive. After all, there are people who team up for the same political systems (e.g., welfare statism, fascism, anarcho-syndicalism) and policies (e.g., gun control, freedom of speech, zoning laws) who have very disparate views of reality (e.g., neo- mystics, materialists, skeptics), Man's cognitive methods (e.g., reason, feeling, intuition, tradition), and how Man should live (e.g., Nietzschean egoism, altruism, religious codes, emotivism). How can I reconcile my thesis with these inescapable facts?
First, you should note that men are imperfect, capable of all sorts of failings, including inconsistencies in their views. The source of these inconsistencies is usually some minor evasion. Thus John Locke built his theory of Natural Rights (the beginning of the modern political concept) on the shaky metaphysics of a diluted Christianity and the mixed epistemology of a very empirical Cartesianism (empirical in the sense that he thought ultimately the mind was in touch with the external world; Cartesian in that he still held the Cartesian view of the mind and the belief that sensations were the ground floor of cognition).
Can we always blame men for their failings? Blame implies a degree of control over the situation in question. In certain cases, blame can be placed. These would include cases where the given person of group ruthlessly evades the truth or supports an open contradiction. Jane Fonda comes to mind.
Second, in the broad long-range historical sense, philosophies do seem to move societies towards their concretization as well as weeding out contradictory principles within a given movement of ideas. The mistakes made by Locke could've fallen two ways. You could have rejected his basic philosophy or rejected his political inclinations. Even within his basic philosophy there were contradictory elements, e.g. as above the Cartesian model of the mind versus the senses as the ultimate source of know- ledge. When this sort of thing happens generally one element wins out over the other, the "loser" is then rejected and the "winner" applied more rigorously. Nazi Germany is an extreme example of this process. The philosophical and cultural eclecticism of the Weimar Republic evolved into the monolith that was the Third Reich. (The principles that gained the upper hand were collectivism, irrationality, and altruism.)
Individuals, not being omnipotent, find themselves in the milieu of such processes. Very few are willing, it seems, to examine the basic trends and the root ideas much less find out what all their options are. Sadly, they come into the grip of forces they can little understand or change.
Third, for you conspiracy buffs, even if conspiracies are operating in a given culture – no doubt they do in ours though perhaps not on as large a scale as some would believe – they are working within a philosophical backdrop. A conspiracy to limit, say, immigration or trade in high tech goodies can only function if there's a underlying conviction that it's not necessarily wrong to do these things in the society being so manipulated. In other words, in a culture that is for free and open migration and trade, controlling these things covertly would be next to impossible. However, in a culture that holds the opposite view there will probably be open control already or a desire for it over these things making it far easier for hidden manipulation to succeed.
Politics is derived from philosophy, but this should not be taken in an oversimplified sense. Actually, a given person can hold quite contradictory principles (such as the individual right to own his body versus the right of the government to draft him into the military), but in the long run such ambiguities do work themselves out. Sometimes a new set of principles can take the stage, but usually one of the two or more competing elements wins out. In the example above, if you support a draft, it's quite obvious that the government's power has won out over the individual's right, regardless of your hand wavings and rantings to the contrary. Thus politics is derived from philosophy, but you must be careful to look at all of the underlying philosophy, not just the parts a given person or group gives lip service to.