The de facto restriction or at least very strong preference of most of the current philosophy, especially at our universities, to that part which deals with the much-vaunted reason certainly ignores essential parts of what is practiced today in actual politics. Trump and in similar way the German right-wing party AfD, for example, are certainly not friends of theory, and yet we have to deal with the phenomenon of those real "unreasonable" approaches that are undoubtedly supported by a not entirely negligible part of the population. So theory and practice diverge. It seems any sense for this situation is either almost completely lost or has even not emerged at all, that here too compromises between the two can and must be achieved. With the alternative philosophy presented here, a viable modern Middle Way between the two may be given, which indeed could bring significant effects for a better realization of political day-to-day business. At first, however, resignation may dominate the field, because hardly a politician wants to hear proposals of this kind anymore.
It is about weighing and possible compromises. Behind this is also the transition from static to dynamic conditions characterizing modernity. This is still little aware and may even be intentionally suppressed by sections of the population. Self-interest prevails among the richer part, but in the case of the poorer part, ignorance is likely to prevail.