Hi Derek,
you have to call things by their individual merits. So no, despair does not necessarily equal 'bad philosophy' just as optimism does not necessarily equal 'good philosophy'. But, firstly, talk of 'good' and 'bad' philosophy as per my last sentence seems a little crude, and of course a little too formalistic. So, bad = despairing, good = positive would be a silly/myopic way of setting things up, just as bad = continental, good = analytic is a silly/myopic/partisan way of setting things up. You have to judge according to individual merits and to do that you need to appreciate what is going on, in order to really appreciate what is going on you need to exert some effort. Second despair can be politically enervating, so the question is always: 'where does this leave us?' If it only leaves us with despair then perhaps this is a point which can be criticised. Of course criticism does not necessarily mean total rejection, it might mean something like sublation.

Perhaps there is a broad sense in which cultural despair is spot on. If one is hoping for something new, something that might transform our political culture then, from one point of view, looking at Anglophone political philosophy does not give us much to be hopeful about. Hegel has been criticised as a philosopher of the Prussian state, a philosopher of the status quo, these are problematic claims, but if one looks at contemporary Anglophone philosophy one might equally get the impression that most Anglophone philosophers are simply philosophers of the status quo. Anglophone political philosophy is either the philosophy of liberalism or the philosophy of public policy, the former is philosophy of the status quo the latter is just the abandonment of political philosophy. If you take that view, and I can see why you might (I have had conversations along these lines recently, its not a completely unrealistic view) then there might be some reason for despair. Of course, and from a slightly different point of view, this could be rejected by reference to contemporary Republicanism, which is quite interesting. Furthermore neo-republicanism could be a point of dialogue between traditions. It depends what data one takes as relevant - it depends what bits of the social world you look at, it depends on what philosophy you look at and it depends on the kind of lens you filter it all through (the presuppositions that you bring with you).

Phil