Morality, as far as I can see, is just the emotions of people. I don't think there is a whole lot of thinking to do about emotions, in this regard, whereas political thought has the capacity to be far more empirical. In light of this, I'll refer to political thought alone.
I think a reasonable definition of morality is, "the answer to the question, 'what ought I (not) do?'". It's a functional definition, as our morality allows us to make value judgments about how we should act in any given situation. Morality and emotions are intertwined, sure. If you think something is wrong, you're likely to feel disgust when someone does it. But I don't think that makes morality bunk. If you've ever seen a video that was just gross--say, a video in which someone has a very snotty sneeze--you probably felt grossed out. But you wouldn't say that video was immoral. Whatever is immoral is immoral for a reason. There are lots of documentaries out there about the sins of our farming industry, for instance. An omnivore may see such a documentary and feel repulsed, and decide that slaughterhouses are immoral. But if you ask that person why they feel that way, they wouldn't say that slaughterhouses are immoral because repulsive. They would instead invoke, say, the right of animals not to suffer gratuitously. Did they change their mind because of emotions? Yes, to an extent.
But their reasoning is independent of that.
I used to argue with family members who opposed same-sex marriage. Some indeed were so petty as to want it banned because it was "gross". But all offered the additional justification of "marriage is between a man and a woman something something Bible". And if you've ever taken part in a thought experiment as a group, say the trolley problem, you'll find that there are moral questions which don't have much to do with emotions, as some people dutifully cross the room to let the five die because of their belief in the categorical imperative not to use someone as a means to an end. Could you argue that these more abstract decisions flow from concrete emotional ones? Sure.
Even if you do that, though, morality has an objective answer because of what it is. If morality is the question "what ought I (not) do?", some answer is correct, even if the answer is, "nothing in particular". And whatever is right, there is a reason for its correctness.
tl;dr emotions and morality are connected but separate
That aside, I take issue with your assertion that political thought is more "empirical". What do you mean by that?
Yes, the average, hell even the above average person, does do political philosophy a disservice with heuristic views, but at the same time people need identity, in order to function.I believe that there are individuals who recognise the shortcoming of heuristics, yet are bound by time constraints. The time required to evaluate permutations in possible paths, for any issue, is staggering. Given enough thought, I think it becomes readily obvious that one cannot become an expert on all political topics, let alone a handful. Add to that a full-time job, children, wife/husband, friends etc, and there isn't a chance in hell. So, we defer to expert opinion, and make leaps in faith in trusting them. This, in turn, weakens our political position, because our position is not reached by our own thoughts/processes, but rather faith, to varying degrees, in others.Therefore, it is not necessarily that the vast majority of us are poor at political, but that the majority simply do not have the time necessary to reach worthwhile conclusions, and thus resort to heuristics/appeals to authority.
Philosophical issues are so complex that even a lifetime of thought probably won't "solve" even one thing. I agree with you there. But that's not what I think makes people bad at political philosophy. I don't think deferring to experts is bad, either, although many people have poor understandings of what constitutes an "expert". Where people go wrong, IMO, is in their unwillingness to think responsibly, to admit not only that the other side is possibly right in some respects, but also that, in the face of the vast amount of information on Earth alone, there are bound to be some beliefs you and I hold, even dearly, that are wrong. Conviction in your philosophical beliefs is perfectly fine; that's what a belief is, as you can't believe something you hold no conviction in. But, being unwilling to entertain a differing view is (in most cases) counterproductive and makes you worse at thinking. Thinking mostly about the crowds who say "liberals/conservatives are out to destroy America" or "vaccines gave my child autism and you can't tell me otherwise it's all a big corporate conspiracy", for instance.
tl;dr people are bad at political philosophy because they aren't cautious and self-questioning enough
"Identity" is an abstract concept, so please elaborate.
As to my political philosophy being wrong, I'm yet to incur the rigidity of self-ascribed identity politics :)
What is the role of government in a society?