• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel.

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

A Multi-perspectival and Integral Approach to Geopolitics

Joseph Dillard / ChatGPT

In a November 2024 discussion with Glenn Diesen and Alexander Mercouris, John Mearsheimer made the very interesting observation that there are three basic approaches to geopolitics: ideological, nationalistic, and realist. As a multi-perspectival approach to geopolitics, these three roughly align with identity, security, and rational priorities that can serve as a priori foundations for resolving geopolitical conflicts. Due to my bias toward the realist/rational approach, I asked Chat GPT to weigh in on those distinctions and have paraphrased its responses in what follows, adding my own comments, particularly as this discussion applies to integral and interpersonal conflict resolution.

The ideological approach

This approach views geopolitics through the lens of political or moral principles, often promoting universal values or specific doctrines. Democracy, communism, and religions are examples of ideologies. The focus is on spreading these ideals globally, sometimes overriding practical or national concerns. It is driven by a belief in universal principles, such as freedom, equality, religion, or human rights, and prioritizes ideology over pragmatic realities or immediate national interests. It typically assumes that the world will benefit from adopting its worldview.

Examples of an ideological approach to geopolitical issues include the Cold War, from 1947 to 1991, between the United States and the Soviet Union. The U.S. pursued a policy of containment to prevent the spread of communism, promoting democracy and capitalism while the Soviet Union aimed to expand communism, presenting it as a path to equality and liberation from imperialism. In the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, revolutionary France sought to export the ideals of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” across Europe, challenging monarchies and aristocratic systems. The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran promotes a revolutionary Shia Islamist ideology, supporting groups like Hezbollah and aiming to spread its vision of political Islam in the Middle East. In the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the USSR sought to support a communist government in Afghanistan, aligning with its broader goal of spreading Marxist-Leninist ideology globally. The U.S. War on Terror, (Post-9/11), provides another example of an ideological approach to geopolitics. The United States framed its military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a broader mission to spread democracy and combat extremism, promoting freedom and human rights in the Middle East.

Authors who have focused on the ideological approach to geopolitical disputes include Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington. In The End of History and the Last Man (1992), Fukuyama argued that ideological conflicts might end with the global dominance of liberal democracy, emphasizing the centrality of identity in political systems. In The Clash of Civilizations (1996), Huntington explored how cultural and ideological identities (e.g., religion and civilization) drive conflict. Notice that integral AQAL is ideological in its approach in that it also typically assumes the world will benefit from adopting an integral worldview based on multi-perspectivalism, spirituality, and consciousness.

The nationalistic approach

This geopolitical approach is rooted in the idea of prioritizing the interests, culture, and sovereignty of one's own nation, often to the exclusion of broader international concerns. It emphasizes loyalty to the nation-state and frequently asserts dominance over others for security. It is driven by national pride, cultural identity, and sovereignty and often focuses on expansionism or protectionism. It can involve hostility to external influences or international norms. The nationalistic approach also is heavily invested in identity. The difference is between core, or personal identity, which is more closely aligned with ideological geopolitical framings, and collective, groupthink identity, which is more closely aligned with nationalistic approaches.

Examples include Nazi Germany's expansionism during World War II. Adolf Hitler's policies were grounded in German nationalism, seeking to unite all ethnic Germans and create “Lebensraum” by conquering Eastern Europe. This approach prioritized German identity and supremacy, disregarding international cooperation. China's claims to sovereignty over much of the South China Sea provides another example. It does so based on historical and cultural claims to assert national pride and territorial integrity. In its partition and post-independence policies and in the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, India emphasized Hindu nationalism, prioritizing Hindu identity. The Italian and German unification movements of the 19th Century sought to unite fragmented regions under single nation-states, driven by strong nationalist sentiments to consolidate cultural and ethnic identities. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, was justified by appealing to national pride, claiming to protect ethnic Russians and historical ties to the region. Ukraine's post-2014 government has been strongly nationalistic.

Authors who have explored the nationalistic foundations of geopolitical disputes include Benedict Anderson and John Mearsheimer. In Imagined Communities (1983), Anderson explored the concept of nationalism, showing how shared identity and security concerns forge nationalistic movements. In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), Mearsheimer linked nationalism to security concerns and the inevitability of conflict in an anarchic international system.

The realist approach (Realpolitik)

A pragmatic approach to geopolitics focuses on power dynamics and national interests rather than ideology or national pride. It recognizes the importance of compromise, alliances, and practical strategies to maximize influence and security and is driven by power, security, and material interests. The realist approach typically avoids moral or ideological considerations, adapting to circumstances, often using diplomacy or coercion.

Examples include the use of realpolitik by U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the 1970's. Kissinger used realpolitik to improve relations with both China and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This included recognizing China diplomatically despite its communist ideology to counterbalance Soviet influence. After Napoleon's defeat, European powers, including monarchies and republics, collaborated in 1815 in the Congress of Vienna to balance power and maintain peace without prioritizing ideological concerns. In 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to a non-aggression pact (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) and divided Eastern Europe despite ideological opposition, focusing instead on securing their respective interests. Turkey, which is a NATO member, also engages closely with Russia, including purchasing military equipment, balancing its security interests with pragmatic economic and geopolitical goals. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia relationship provides another example. Despite differing values on democracy and human rights, the U.S. maintains strong ties with Saudi Arabia for access to oil and strategic stability in the Middle East. The Saudi elites maintain major investments in the U.S., send their children to study in the west and vacation there. China's infrastructure investments through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are a pragmatic effort to extend its global influence and ensure access to critical trade routes, resources, and markets.

Authors who have explored the realist approach to geopolitics include Hans Morgenthau and Henry Kissinger. Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations (1948) emphasized the role of pragmatism and power in international relations, focusing on reasoned statecraft over ideological or emotional considerations. In Diplomacy (1994), Kissinger illustrated the application of realpolitik, focusing on rational decision-making and balance of power in historical and contemporary conflicts. The principle geopolitical realists in the west today are John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs. Their absence from mainstream media is testimony to how out-of-favor realist approaches to geopolitics have fallen in the contemporary West.

Summary of differences in these geopolitical perspectives

The ideological approach

An ideological approach to geopolitics is values-driven and aims to promote a worldview. It emphasizes spreading beliefs or systems. A nationalistic approach to geopolitics is nation-focused, prioritizing cultural identity, national goals, and sovereignty. A realist approach prioritizes power and security through achieving pragmatic objectives, such as strategic alliances and economic influence based on current circumstances. The ideological, nationalistic, and realist approaches to geopolitics align respectively with identity, security, and reason because they prioritize different foundational principles in their decision-making and goals.

The ideological approach is grounded in shared beliefs, values, or worldviews, such as political ideologies, religion, or culture. This connection to identity makes it about unifying groups and shaping global norms through principles. In the Cold War the U.S. and USSR pursued global influence based on the competing ideologies of capitalism and communism. In the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, Iran established itself as an Islamic Republic and exported its Shia Islamist identity abroad.

The strengths of an ideological approach to geopolitics include unity and cohesion and a sense of morality. Ideology creates a shared purpose, rallying domestic and international support. Actions framed as serving universal values often gain legitimacy due to their association with moral societal norms.

The weaknesses of an ideological approach include the possible ignoring of pragmatic realities, leading to overreach, such as the U.S. intervention in Vietnam, and polarization, in which competing ideologies create deep divides and conflict, as seen in the Cold War or sectarian strife in the Middle East.

The nationalist approach

Nationalism ties directly to security, emphasizing the protection of a nation's sovereignty, culture, and borders. It often portrays external forces or influences as threats to the nation's survival or identity.

In 2016, as an expression of nationalism, United Kingdom voted to leave the EU to reclaim sovereignty and protect its national identity from perceived overreach by Brussels. Russia justified its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as protecting Russian speakers and reclaiming historical Russian lands.

Nationalism provides a strong foundation for geopolitical decision-making because it safeguards a nation's autonomy and cultural heritage. It appeals to national pride, which can galvanize public support during crises.

Weaknesses of a nationalistic approach include exclusionary tendencies that can marginalize minorities or reject international cooperation. Examples include the Ukrainian outlawing of Russian language immediately following the Maidan and anti-immigration policies currently perused in the U.S. Nationalism also tends to escalate conflicts by overemphasizing national interests. This often leads to territorial disputes or wars, such as World War II. A nationalistic approach can easily devolve into an unresolvable manichaeistic polarization between nations.

The realist approach

Realism is grounded in reason, prioritizing pragmatism and power over ideology or security. Decisions are based on what is achievable and beneficial for a state's interests rather than emotional or moral considerations. For example, in 1972, despite ideological opposition, the U.S. and China improved relations to counterbalance Soviet power. During the Cold War, India avoided alignment with either the Western or Soviet blocs, balancing its independence with pragmatic partnerships.

Strengths of a realistic approach to geopolitics includes flexibility and conflict avoidance. Realism allows states to adapt to changing circumstances and focus on tangible gains. By prioritizing practical interests, realism often seeks compromise, as in Cold War détente.

Weaknesses of geopolitical realism include ethical ambiguity and short-term focus. Realism may justify unethical actions, such as supporting dictators for strategic gains. Machiavelli provides the classical example of toxic realism. Realpolitik may also neglect long-term consequences or values, risking blowback. However, China's foreign policy is pragmatic and realist, but relies on five year and even fifty-year national developmental plans.

The distinctions among ideology/identity, nationalism/security, and realism/reason provide valuable tools for analyzing and addressing geopolitical disputes by highlighting the motivations and priorities of the actors involved. By understanding these distinctions, policymakers can tailor their strategies, identify common ground, and anticipate potential conflicts.

INTEGRALISM AND MULTI-PERSPECTIVALISM

Although the focus of idealism tends to be on development from a transpersonal perspective rather than the exercise of geopolitical power, the above description of ideology applies to various forms of idealism, including Integral AQAL. We can observe similar strengths and limitations in Integral AQAL. A multi-perspectival, all-quadrant, line, level, state, and style approach generates unity and cohesion. Because it is spiritually based it carries the mantle of moral authority. Pragmatic realities often ignored by Integral AQAL include the lack of relationship between morality and level of development, with lower developmental levels in actuality often acting in more ethical ways than levels of higher cognitive or spiritual development. The result is a form of cognitive and ethical overreach by idealisms in general and Integral in particular, attributing higher moral development to themselves without sufficient supporting evidence, thereby undermining their credibility.

In all forms of multi-perspectivalism, there are trade-offs inherent in any and all approaches, showing that context must always be considered, as one set of prevailing adaptive circumstances necessitates the application of one approach over the other. However, following Integral AQAL, perspectives associated with higher levels of development generally take precedent over perspectives associated with lower levels, because the higher levels include and then transcend the lower levels. This reasoning can apply to geopolitical decision-making as well. Ideology, reinforcing fundamental identity and based on systems of belief and emotional predilections, is largely prepersonal, grounded in pre-rational childhood scripting. Nationalism, addressing collective security concerns, is associated in AQAL theory with tribalism and late prepersonal, early personal levels of development. Realism, because it is based on the objectivity toward identity, belief, and worldview that rationality can provide, includes and then transcends ideological and nationalistic approaches to problem solving, both on an individual and geopolitical level.

However, as described above, that conclusion is not meant to imply that realism is always the best solution, but only that due to its prioritization of objectivity, it needs to be taken into account when applying ideological or nationalistic solutions. In my opinion, integralists tend to disregard this principle, instead assuming that some worldview or ideology is transpersonal without providing evidence to support that conclusion. For example, integralists tend to assume that higher levels of development are both more “spiritual” and moral, but typically gloss countervailing evidence. Wilber would probably categorize this logical error as an example of an elevationistic misunderstanding of his Pre/Trans Fallacy.

It is also essential to recognize that morality does not follow the integral dictum regarding the superiority of levels that include, then transcend other perspectives. The reason it does not is that the determinants of morality are the same for all levels, although they are understood and applied differently on different levels. On all levels we ask, “Do you respect me?” “Do you reciprocate?” “Are you trustworthy in ways that matter to me?” “Are you empathetic?” Regardless of your level of development, if you do not pass these moral tests, you lack credibility on the level of development of the listener.

This principle not only goes far in explaining why integral has not caught fire globally but why all three of these approaches to geopolitics mostly talk past each other. Each fails to pass these moral tests from the perspectives of the other two geopolitical frameworks. Generally, that is due to a failure to enact and enforce measures of accountability and enforcement - international law.

How These Distinctions Clarify or Resolve Geopolitical Disputes

Recognizing whether a conflict is driven by ideology/identity, nationalism/security, or realism/reason can still help policymakers craft appropriate responses by helping to understand the motivations of the other side. For example, the Cold War was primarily an ideological struggle between capitalism vs. communism, democracy vs authoritarianism. Understanding this ideological divide allowed for containment strategies and the eventual policy of détente to reduce tensions.

Diplomatic approaches can be tailored based on which of the geopolitical framings is predominant. If a dispute is primarily ideological, dialogue can focus on finding shared human values. If it is nationalistic, offering security guarantees or addressing sovereignty concerns can de-escalate tensions. If it is realist, focusing on mutual interests, such as economic benefits or shared threats, can lead to pragmatic solutions.

The U.S.-China rapprochement in the 1970s succeeded because both nations prioritized realist concerns over ideological divides, finding mutual interest in counterbalancing Soviet power. Nationalistic disputes are more likely to escalate into military conflict due to their emotional and existential stakes, such as in territorial disputes, such as Russia's annexation of Crimea. Ideological conflicts may persist longer, as they aim to reshape worldviews, but they are also more prone to compromise when power balances shift. For example there was a monumental ideological shift in China post-1978.

Misinterpreting a conflict's primary driver can lead to ineffective or counterproductive policies. For example, U.S. interventions in Vietnam and Iraq misunderstood the nationalistic motivations of local populations as purely ideological, undermining their effectiveness.

Applications of these concepts for geopolitical resolution

Similarly, misinterpreting an individual's primary driver can lead to ineffective or counterproductive relationships. Are you driven by your values, need for security, or by reason? By which, in what situations? If I misread you regarding these I will either be ignored or lack credibility.

Returning to the geopolitical macrocosm for examples, during the Cold War, ideological motivations dominated U.S.-Soviet relations, but realist strategies like arms control treaties, such as the SALT agreements, were critical in reducing tensions. Nationalistic and ideological framings have deconstructed almost all arms agreements between the U.S. and Russia. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict combines nationalist (security and territorial claims) and ideological (identity and religious) dimensions. Resolving it requires addressing both existential security concerns, for instance, regarding borders, and deep-seated identity issues. Due to the failure of negotiations and diplomatic solutions, this conflict looks to be settled via extreme realist measures: might makes right and victory under arms.

Those failures are fundamentally due to ideological intransigence. If one or both parties to a dispute will not agree to reason-grounded pragmatism or to arbitration/mediation, the solution is decided by “might makes right.” The same holds true for the war in Ukraine. The failure of diplomacy functionally settles the conflict in Russia's favor. The South China Sea disputes are primarily nationalistic, tied to sovereignty and security, but can be approached through realist reasoning by emphasizing shared economic benefits of stable trade routes. It appears that commercial and economic realities will eventually generate a solution to this dispute among its various conflicting parties. Similarly, on a personal level of interaction, the practicalities of daily life generally generate a mutually workable relationship, even if it is one of non-interaction: “Good fences make good neighbors.”

Applying these frameworks to Ukraine, Israel, and China

Three specific and current examples of the use of these distinctions to resolve geopolitical conflicts are the Ukraine-NATO/Russia War, the Israeli-Palestinian War, and the U.S.-Taiwan/China confrontation.

The Ukraine-NATO/Russia War

Regarding the Ukraine-NATO/Russia War, the core drivers of nationalism/security for Russia are its desire to reclaim influence over former Soviet territories and ensure its security against NATO expansion. It views this as a direct threat to its survivability as a state and a “red line.” Core drivers for Ukraine are both ideological and nationalistic, as Ukraine aligns itself with Western liberal democratic ideals while requiring citizen allegiance to a distinct Ukrainian identity. Regarding realism/reason, underlying geopolitical concerns include control of resources, strategic territory (Crimea, Donbas), and power balancing in Europe.

A potential resolution framework includes nationalistic/security guarantees. For Russia, these were laid out in a policy statement in late 2021, addressing overall power relationships in Europe. Recently, Ukrainian authorities have floated a post-World War II “Finland” solution that defused conflict by guaranteeing the neutrality of Finland. Regarding ideology, Russia could recognize Ukraine's right to self-determination as a sovereign state while maintaining diplomatic dialogue to address cultural and linguistic rights for ethnic Russians in contested areas. The problem here is that Ukraine has refused to recognize those rights and has in fact outlawed them. Also, Russia has no reason to conclude such agreements will be upheld, based on past experience with Minsk II and other negotiations with Ukraine and the West. Regarding the advancement of a realist solution to the conflict, a ceasefire and a neutral or demilitarized zone in eastern Ukraine could be mediated and negotiated. Russia's withdrawal could be incentivized through sanctions relief tied to verifiable actions. Neutral powers, such as Turkey and India could be engaged to mediate practical terms acceptable to both sides.

At present, that is, as of late 2024, a settlement regarding Ukraine appears to be unlikely due to an unwillingness to engage in diplomacy by both Ukraine and the West as well as an unwillingness to remove sanctions on Russia. However, there is a growing realization that Russia's claims to Crimea and the four eastern oblasts of Ukraine are unlikely to be reversed. The most likely outcome is a reduction of Western incentives to fund and arm what it regards as a losing proposition, leading to the collapse of the Ukrainian military and government. Such a collapse would create a vacuum of power within an impoverished and prostate Ukraine. It appears unlikely that the West will be willing to pump the massive economic support into Ukraine necessary to revitalize it. Due to that reality and the fact that Russians regard Ukrainians as ethnic “brothers” split off from Russia by a Western-induced civil war, Russia is the most likely source of future economic support for the revitalization of Ukraine.

The Israeli-Palestinian war

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian war, the core drivers of the conflict are the fundamentally different religious and historical claims to land and identity. Ideological differences are profound. Regarding nationalism/Security, both sides view control of territory as essential to their survival. For Israel, security concerns dominate; for Palestinians, sovereignty and resistance to occupation are central. Regarding realism/reason, economic and practical issues, such as governance, access to resources, and sustainable borders, also play a significant role in the conflict.

A potential resolution framework assumes a willingness to negotiate. Failing that, a resolution will be dictated by military and economic realities. Historical and religious claims to the land by both sides would foster mutual acknowledgment of identity. International leaders could frame the conflict resolution as preserving cultural and religious heritage for all parties. Nationalistic/security measures could include the implementation of robust, internationally monitored security guarantees for Israel to address fears of attacks while granting Palestinians greater autonomy or create a phased path toward statehood while ensuring demilitarization agreements to mitigate Israeli security concerns. However, this has not proven to be realistic, due to Israel's reliance on apartheid and genocide, including both the expulsion and extermination of Palestinians over at least seven decades. Israel would have to abandon its absolutist ideologically-based claims to the land for such an approach to be feasible. I do not see that happening, as many Israelis would rather migrate or wage war than accept such a resolution. At present, there are estimates that some one million Israeli Jews have already migrated, out of a population of some seven million Israeli Jews.

Realist negotiations toward a settlement might include dividing Jerusalem under an international framework that secures access to holy sites for all religions and leveraging economic incentives. That would include international investment in Palestinian infrastructure, education, and economy to create interdependence between Israel and a future Palestinian state. Neutral states, such as China, could serve as mediators to propose practical solutions acceptable to both sides. Indeed, it already is.

The destiny of Israel, like that of Ukraine, is already visible on the horizon. Israel is in the process of internal collapse for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the growing realization that its escalation dominance in the region is a myth. This realization implodes security claims that maintain Israel as an ethnocentric theocracy masquerading as a democracy.

The U.S.-Taiwan/China confrontation

Regarding the U.S.-Taiwan/China confrontation, China sees Taiwan as a vital part of its national integrity and views U.S. support as interference in its sovereignty. Taiwan prioritizes its democratic identity and de facto independence, while the U.S. seeks to maintain regional balance, protect allies, and above all, protect imperial hegemony. These are all nationalistic/security issues, and they predominate in the decision-making and the disagreements among the opposing parties.

Regarding ideology/identity, Taiwan and the U.S view Taiwan as democratic and China as authoritarian, creating a symbolic conflict of governance models. China, of course, views the conflict in different terms, as U.S. interference in the internal affairs of China, since the U.S. has signed off on a “one China” policy. Economic and geographic realities force a degree of realism and reason into this conflict. The U.S. is heavily dependent on Chinese exports, whether it likes it or not. Taiwan is very close to the Chinese mainland, making a defense of Taiwan functionally unrealistic, and it is closely intertwined economically and culturally with the mainland.

The resolution of this conflict is much more feasible than the Ukrainian and Israeli/Palestinian conflicts. There already exists a “status quo plus” framework, which worked for decades, in the form of the One China policy. China has been content for Taiwan to maintain de facto independence without formally declaring it, avoiding provocation, just as it was with Hong Kong for decades and with Tibet, for centuries. To defuse the conflict, the U.S. could agree to limit high-profile military exercises in the Taiwan Strait in exchange for China reducing aggressive military posturing near Taiwan. Regarding ideological accommodation, cultural and economic exchanges between Taiwan and mainland China to de-escalate ideological tensions can be promoted. Taiwan's democratic model can be framed as a distinct system that can coexist peacefully with China's governance, rather than being a threat to it. Regarding realist power balancing, the U.S.-China dialogue can be strengthened through multilateral platforms, such as ASEAN. to address shared concerns like economic stability and climate change. Agreements on military de-escalation in the Indo-Pacific, including buffer zones or restrictions on naval maneuvers, can be pursued. However, at present, ideological and nationalistic priorities of the U.S. take precedence over pragmatic and realistic solutions to its conflict with China.

Addressing ideological and identity concerns fosters mutual respect and reduces the emotional stakes of the conflict. Recognizing sovereignty and ensuring territorial integrity alleviate existential fears that drive escalation. Pragmatic agreements rooted in shared interests provide a foundation for sustainable resolutions. However, underlying ideological and identity commitments often sabotage the most reasonable of interventions if they are seen as either threatening or not advancing core concerns of one or both parties.

Strengths of this analytical framework

Clarity and objectivity is provided by identifying the underlying driver of a conflict. This helps avoid missteps based on superficial interpretations. When diplomatic tools are aligned to the nature of a conflict, strategic focus is enhanced, whether involving ideological dialogue, nationalistic reassurance, or realist bargaining. Distinguishing between approaches can prevent unnecessary escalation by targeting core concerns as a form of conflict mitigation.

Weaknesses of the framework

Because many conflicts involve all three dimensions, it can be difficult to isolate a single driver. It may be necessary to tease out which side focuses on which approach regarding different aspects of the conflict. For example, the U.S. intervention in Iraq combined ideological, nationalistic, and realist elements in the form of spreading democracy, U.S. security concerns post-9/11, and regional power balance. This framework, and the realist approach in particular, also assumes there are rational actors on both sides of any geopolitical dispute when in fact nationalistic and ideological passions often override rational calculations. This is particularly in evidence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Psychological implications of a multi-perspectival approach to geopolitical conflicts

Most people who are either nationalists or ideologues see themselves as realists and rational actors. And indeed they are, in most cases. There are many historical examples of highly intelligent and often effective nationalists and ideologues.

In 19th Century Germany, Otto von Bismarck, the architect of German unification, used Realpolitik to combine strategic diplomacy, calculated warfare, and pragmatic alliances to consolidate the German Empire in 1871. His geopolitical insights created a European balance of power that endured for decades. The ideological nationalism of Giuseppe Mazzini, a leading figure in the unification of Italy, emphasized self-determination and inspired similar movements across Europe and Latin America. Thomas Jefferson strongly believed in American exceptionalism, helping to shape the ideological foundation of the United States' expansionism. Theodor Herzl was the ideologue behind the creation of modern political Zionism. He formulated the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, combining ideological nationalism with practical geopolitics. Vladimir Lenin was primarily a communist ideologue, but his approach to international relations and national self-determination was highly strategic. His geopolitical vision extended beyond Russia to the global proletarian movement. Though primarily known for non-violent resistance, Mohandas Gandhi was a nationalist with a sophisticated understanding of geopolitics. He used moral authority and mass mobilization to challenge British imperial rule. Mao Zedong was both a communist revolutionary as well as a nationalist who sought to restore China's sovereignty and global stature. His geopolitical thinking influenced the balance of power during the Cold War. Barack Obama combined high intelligence with an ideological commitment to American exceptionalism.

These individuals illustrate the human proclivity to cloak ideology and nationalism in rational justifications and realist-sounding arguments. For example, Westerners typically view the distinction between Western democracies and non-Western autocracies as a rational fact, when in reality it is an ideological position that does not reflect how non-Westerners, for example, Chinese, Russians, or Iranians, view their own governments. As another example, Hamas is commonly labeled in the West as a terrorist organization, when it was democratically elected in 2006. Because that reality did not fit the prevailing ideological narrative, the legitimacy of that election was both ignored and denied.

The assumption that we are rational and realistic when in fact we use reason to justify pre-rational personal and collective agendas is a fundamental source of personal and international conflict. When we do so, we discard facts that do not conform to our worldview rather than change our worldview based on new information. The antidote to this pervasive cognitive disorder is to begin with the assumption that we are not rational actors, but instead largely make decisions based on unrecognized cognitive biases, personal and socio-cultural scripting, groupthink, and interests that lack both empathy and a moral foundation. However, to do so threatens our identity, our sense of who we are.

We are typically confident that we are both rational and moral. How is it then that we can so easily see the lack of rationality in others as well as their moral failings, while continuing to conclude that we are somehow an exception to that common reality? How do we learn authentic humility as an antidote to pervasive hubris? The answer lies in the cultivation of the ability to surface and question our assumptions regarding ourselves, others, and the geopolitical conditions in which we find ourselves. It also lies in the ability to suspend our worldview and provisionally adopt the worldview of adversaries in order to evolve an empathy that reduces polarization and recognizes the commonalities that all humans share. These include the desire to be respected, a need for reciprocity, proof of trustworthiness, and a desire to be understood, even when there are fundame