The pragmatic revolution (postmodern revolution) is thought to have significantly/completely changed philosophy and its vocabulary. However with regard to politics, we still seem to be using Platonic notions of justice, freedom and such. Machiavelli approached politics from a more pragmatic context, something that involved basic human emotions around glory, power, treachery, revenge and so on. Even Freudian ideas should have been bought lock, stock and barrel by political theorists. But still the old Greek approach seems to be much more popular, even today. Why is that the case? Almost every other branch of the humanities has completely changed but not this. A lot of this seems to be because political thought is still very local. The American model can't work in Russia, and for that reason nothing out of Harvard politics matters much to that country. Same with almost every other nation. There doesn't seem to be as much universality to political thought, as maybe mathematics perhaps.
I doubt if the idea of current Western political concepts as derived en bloc from Plato or even the Ancient Greeks will stand much scrutiny. When we use the term 'justice' we may think it a translation of the Greek dike or dikaiosune, but it isn't. The latter had a wider sense of 'righteousness' than our 'justice'; and the Greeks never performed the acrobatics on 'justice', even if we stick to that translation, that we do with our notions of positive or reverse discrimination.
Human rights are at the centre of current political discourse in the West. The Greeks (I think) had no notion of rights but certainly they had no idea of human rights as goods to which all humans are entitled by virtue of their humanity.
The Greeks had the idea and practice of democracy but this was of direct, participatory democracy; they had no idea of representative democracy.
There is a wide range of concepts in political philosophy of which the Greeks knew nothing : public choice theory, rational choice theory, gender politics, identity politics, equal opportunity, alienation, anomie, the welfare state, the corporate state, totalitarianism, fascism, capitalism, socialism, environmentalism, deep ecology, social contract : and so on and on.
The idea that we are in hock to Greek political thought in general, or Plato's in particular, can't be sustained. This is not to deny that there is a legacy of Greek thought; but it is a legacy, not a total domination.
As for Freud, he was certainly a trailblazer; the mind never looks the same again after one has read Freud. But his detailed theories have little currency or credibility now in mainstream psychology. Political philosophy needs to be informed by a variety of disciplines - psychology, genetics, neurophysiology, evolutionary biology, economics. This is gradually happening in the academic journals even if it has not penetrated far into ordinary and traditional political discourse.
Geraint Williams, Political Theory in Retrospect: From the Ancient Greeks to the 20th Century. ISBN 10: 1852786418 / ISBN 13: 9781852786410 Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 1992
T.A. Sinclair, A History of Greek Political Thought. Published by Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1959.
D. Kagan, Sources in Greek Political Thought. The Free Press, 1965.
R. Scruton, Dictionary of political thought.ISBN 10: 0333647866 / ISBN 13: 9780333647868. Macmillan 1996 2nd edition .
The political theory in Prof. C. Fred Alford's book 'Group Psychology and Political Theory' brings a very modern grounding. Based on observations of group psychology - our natural heritage from evolving in and as tribes - he goes on to discuss Churchill's successful method of 'interpretive leadership'.
In this innovative book, C. Fred Alford argues that the group - not the individual - is the most fundamental reality in society and that political theory has overlooked the insights of group psychology and leadership. ... Alford asserts that small, unstructured, leaderless groups are the closest thing to the state of nature that political theorists write about. According to Alford, none of the familiar traditions in political theory - including modern state-of-nature theory, liberalism, communitarianism, postmodernism, and feminist theory - makes sense of the group experience. Most contemporary political theorists have erred in starting from the position of the individual and moving to an understanding of the individual's struggle to belong to the group and civil society. Instead, says Alford, political theorists should realize that the group is the state of nature, and that civil society is the product of the individual's struggle to separate from the group and develop a sense of self.
Table of Contents:
A Note on Sex, Gender, and Grammar 1. In the Beginning Was the Group 2. The Experience of the Small Group 3. Theoretical Perspectives on the Small Group: Acting Out the Missing Leader 4. Groups Are the State of Nature 5. Tocqueville and the Schizoid Compromise: A Reinterpretation of Contemporary Political Theory in Light of Group Theory 6. Leadership Epilogue: The Wolini.
The pragmatic revolution (postmodern revolution) is thought to have significantly/completely changed philosophy and its vocabulary.
Is post-modernism really pragmatic? Seattle is widely promoted as a "progressive" city, yet it's actually just the opposite. I haven't studied postmodernism in any detail yet, but I've spotted a few red flags.
Machiavelli approached politics from a more pragmatic context, something that involved basic human emotions around glory, power, treachery, revenge and so on.
Judging by some of the discussions I've seen on this and other forums, most modern philosophers are hardly "pragmatic." In the political arena, they tend to be typically plodding thinkers at best, and many are strikingly right-wing.
Case in point: I'm a big fan of emotion and revenge (when properly challenged). However, both appear to be dirty words on this forum.
Even Freudian ideas should have been bought lock, stock and barrel by political theorists.
People certainly need to embrace both philosophy and psychology, though I'm not certain if Freudian ideas are necessarily the key. I've been reading about humanistic psychology, which strikes me as kind of a mixed bag. But I think it may help balance Sigmund Freud's neurosis-based psychology.
A lot of this seems to be because political thought is still very local. The American model can't work in Russia, and for that reason nothing out of Harvard politics matters much to that country. Same with almost every other nation. There doesn't seem to be as much universality to political thought, as maybe mathematics perhaps.
To what degree has political thought been molded by propagandists? I don't have the answer, but I think it's a very significant factor.
Your reference to Harvard makes my point. Among the politically astute, Harvard is a dirty word.
As for the apparent lack of universality, consider the source of most political thought and commentary - the United States. Given the current political situation, it's only natural that people in other countries should be a little suspicious of anything that's made in the USA.
To illustrate my point, ask a question about the morality of the invasion of Libya or the ongoing torture at Guantanamo Bay. I think you'll find the responses illuminating, if not shocking. Maybe we should just forget about truth and justice entirely and shovel ethics into a new category - "moral relativism."
In summary, I don't think there are many philosophers who really have an interest in socio-political reform, which seems to be the general gist of your article. In fact, I think a significant portion of the community is dedicated to supporting the status quo.
So, to finally answer your question more directly - well, let me answer it with a question:
Is the problem the "foundation" or the philosophers themselves (or both)?
If you anticipate waiting for the philosophical community to somehow change and get with the program, don't hold your breath. The situation is really very similar to the political arena, where revolutions are typically started by small groups of people, even individuals.