In an era marked by war and political strife – from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the protracted Israel-Palestine conflict and fierce polarization in the United States – the ancient philosophy of Stoicism has resurfaced as a guide for leaders and citizens alike. Stoicism, founded in Athens and later adopted in Rome, teaches the cultivation of virtue, reason, and resilience in the face of adversity. These principles have proven remarkably timeless. Historical figures like the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius navigated plagues and wars with Stoic calm, and even today military leaders such as General James Mattis praise Meditations as essential reading for its ability to “allow one to look at things with a little distance” amidst chaos . This essay explores how Stoic philosophy can be applied by political leaders and societies to handle contemporary conflicts – including the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Palestine struggle, and the turbulent leadership of Donald Trump – and examines historical instances where Stoicism influenced decision-making in war and crisis. By prioritizing reputable insights from philosophy, political science, and history, we will see that ancient Stoic wisdom offers a steady compass for today’s stormy seas.
Stoicism is an ancient Greco-Roman philosophy grounded in practical advice for facing hardship. At its core is the “dichotomy of control”, the idea that we must discern what is within our power and what is not. As Stoic teacher Epictetus explained, we control our own opinions, choices, desires, and reactions – but external events, other people’s actions, even war itself, are ultimately beyond our direct control. The implication is profound: a leader should focus energy on their own response and duties, rather than wasting it on rage or fear over uncontrollable circumstances. Modern Stoic scholars note that in painful or stressful circumstances, reminding ourselves to focus on what we can control has an immediate calming effect, allowing more rational problem-solving instead of panic. This mindset is vital in conflict situations, preventing impulsive decisions driven by terror or fury.
Equally important are Stoicism’s four cardinal virtues – wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance – which provide a moral framework for leadership. These virtues, inherited from Socratic and Platonic thought, were held by Stoics to be the only true good. In practice:
Underlying all these virtues is a commitment to reason over passion. Stoic thinkers counsel that while emotions like fear and anger are natural, they must not dictate our actions. “We must not allow primordial passions to guide our thinking, but [rather] reason and practical wisdom”, writes one interpreter of Stoicism in relation to crisis situations. The Stoic leader strives to take a mental step back when provoked, examining whether emotional impressions (“They wronged us, we must hit back immediately!”) are truly accurate or helpful, before formulating a response. This reflective pause can prevent disastrous decisions in the heat of conflict. Crucially, Stoicism also promotes a cosmopolitan perspective. Marcus Aurelius reminds himself that even those who do wrong are akin to him – “they participate in the same intelligence… and are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands” – therefore to act with hatred “against one another is contrary to nature”. Such a viewpoint encourages seeing adversaries as fellow humans (albeit misguided or aggressive ones), laying a moral groundwork for negotiation, mercy, or reconciliation once hostilities cease. In sum, Stoic principles arm leaders with emotional resilience, ethical clarity, and a focus on what can be done – qualities invaluable for navigating modern global conflicts.
History provides powerful examples of leaders shaped by Stoic philosophy in times of war and turmoil. Perhaps the most famous is Marcus Aurelius himself. Ruling as Roman Emperor from 161–180 CE, Marcus Aurelius led a life of nearly constant crisis: he fought defensive wars against Germanic tribes (the Marcomannic Wars), confronted a devastating plague, and managed political intrigue. Throughout, he adhered to Stoic teachings, even composing his private Meditations amid the battlefield camps along the Danube. Marcus viewed ruling as a moral responsibility and sought to embody wisdom and justice in governance. He writes that from his Stoic teachers he learned “the idea of a polity in which there is the same law for all, [governance] with regard to equal rights and freedom of speech, and to value a kingly office most of all for the freedom of the governed”. Remarkably, Marcus acted on these principles: though an absolute ruler, he shared power with a co-emperor and empowered the Roman Senate, showing more respect for inclusive governance than perhaps any emperor before him. He was also renowned for his personal temperance. The Historia Augusta records that Marcus was so tolerant that he “bore with unruffled temper the insolence” of critics and “was not offended” even by a satirist who mocked him publicly. Instead of lashing out, he “refused to punish” those who spoke against him – a striking contrast to many rulers (ancient and modern) who react vindictively to dissent. This Stoic poise under provocation likely prevented unnecessary cruelties and kept his people united during hardship. Marcus Aurelius’s reign exemplifies how Stoic virtues can translate into enlightened leadership: he pursued duty and clemency over glory or wrath, even as he prosecuted a difficult war to secure the empire’s safety. His success in holding the empire together and earning the title of “philosopher-king” in history attests to the efficacy of Stoic statesmanship.
Stoic influence can also be seen in the Roman Republic’s final years, notably in the figure of Cato the Younger. Cato was not a victorious general but a senator famed for incorruptible integrity and Stoic rigor. During Julius Caesar’s rise to power (49–44 BCE), Cato chose principled resistance over expediency, preferring to die by his own hand rather than live under what he saw as tyranny. His Stoic suicide made him a martyr for republican liberty and a model of courage and honor. This legacy echoed through the ages: Enlightenment leaders admired Cato as embodying virtue in the face of oppression. For example, George Washington, leading the American Revolution, was so inspired by Addison’s play Cato (1713) that he had it performed for his troops at Valley Forge in 1778. The play dramatized Cato’s “self-sacrificing republican virtue and opposition to tyranny”, casting him as an exemplar of Stoic patriotism. Washington not only used Cato’s story to uplift soldiers suffering a brutal winter, but he even quoted Cato’s lines in his own speeches and letters when urging perseverance or announcing his retirement. By channeling Stoic ideals of duty, self-discipline, and sacrifice for the common good, Washington and other Founding Fathers solidified their resolve to endure hardships and remain united against a superior British force. Thus, Stoicism indirectly shaped decision-making in the Revolutionary War, offering moral reinforcement to leaders risking everything for freedom.
Another Stoic statesman from antiquity is Seneca the Younger, advisor to Emperor Nero in the first century CE. While Seneca’s position was fraught – he tutored a volatile young emperor and eventually fell victim to Nero’s paranoia – his philosophical writings aimed to instill Stoic virtue in governance. In De Clementia (On Mercy), written around 55 CE, Seneca explicitly contrasts the good ruler with the tyrant, urging Nero to show clemency as the highest virtue of power. He argues that “great power is glorious only when it is beneficent”, warning that ruling through fear and cruelty makes a king no better than a disease ravaging the state. Mercy, Seneca insists, is not weakness but enlightened self-interest: “when you appear to spare another, you are really sparing yourself”, since clemency wins loyalty and stability. He even notes that showing mercy often protects the innocent and even the virtuous, who might otherwise be caught in draconian punishment during crises. Seneca’s counsel aimed to restrain Nero’s worst impulses and promote justice and stability in a turbulent reign that saw conspiracies and rebellion. Alongside On Mercy, Seneca’s famous essay “On Anger” advised leaders to govern their tempers. He describes uncontrolled anger as “unable to govern itself…deaf to reason”, leading men to horrific cruelty. A wise leader, according to Seneca, must “set aside anger and remember our commitment to duty”, never punishing in passion. History sadly shows that Nero eventually ignored Seneca’s Stoic advice – plunging into tyranny and forcing Seneca to suicide – but the very attempt highlights that Stoic ideals were seen as an antidote to misrule. In later eras, these Stoic writings on clemency and anger influenced thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment who advocated for more humane leadership, especially in times of civil strife.
In modern history, the Stoic playbook has tangibly helped individuals endure the worst of war. A notable example is Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a U.S. Navy pilot who was shot down during the Vietnam War. Captured in 1965, Stockdale spent over seven years as a POW in the notorious “Hanoi Hilton” prison, where he was repeatedly tortured. He survived this ordeal by leaning on Stoic philosophy – specifically the teachings of Epictetus, which he had studied earlier. In captivity, Stockdale remembered Epictetus’s dictum that while his captors controlled his body, his opinions, judgment, and honor remained his own – those were under his control. This Stoic mindset gave him the mental fortitude to resist enemy pressure (organizing secret communications and a resistance among prisoners) and to endure suffering without despair. Stockdale later said that Stoicism was “invaluable as a way of coping” with extreme hardship, and after the war he lectured on Stoic philosophy’s practical value to military personnel. His story illustrates how Stoic resilience – focusing on one’s character and response rather than lamenting one’s fate – can enable astonishing feats of perseverance. Similar accounts come from other conflict survivors: the Stoic emphasis on finding meaning in suffering and holding to virtue has been compared to the mindsets of heroes like Nelson Mandela in prison or World War II resistance fighters, even if they did not explicitly identify as Stoics. Today, military academies and defense leaders increasingly recognize this ancient wisdom. Programs like the U.S. Army’s Warrior Resilience Training have incorporated Stoicism to teach soldiers emotional control under fire, and figures like General Mattis openly credit Stoic books for helping them remain composed and principled during war. The enduring presence of Stoicism in military and political spheres speaks to its pragmatic power: it offers leaders a way to master themselves before all else, which is often the key to influencing external events effectively.
Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine presents a scenario where Stoic principles can be seen in action and provide guidance. The Ukrainian people and leadership have frequently been described as stoic (with a small ‘s’) for their steadfast resilience in the face of invasion. Indeed, scholars have noted a “democratic stoicism” in Ukraine – an unexpected strength of public resolve and commitment to democratic values despite the shocks of war and hardship. Since 2014 and especially after the full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukrainians have endured loss and destruction that could easily breed fatalism or chaos. Yet, much as Stoicism teaches focusing on one’s own agency, Ukrainian civil society has doubled down on defending their homeland and maintaining governance, which has kept the country functional under siege. Surveys even show that war-weary citizens have not abandoned hopes for freedom; instead support for democracy and EU integration remained strong, as if the adversity clarified what was worth fighting for. This collective fortitude – continuing to vote, to volunteer for the war effort, to help neighbors – mirrors the Stoic idea of meeting misfortune with determination and purpose rather than despair.
Ukrainian leaders, notably President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have exemplified Stoic courage and tenacity in rallying the nation. As one observer put it, “from their President on down, Ukrainians have proven that courage and tenacity… can have an exponential impact on the battlefield”. Outnumbered and outgunned, they have embraced the Stoic virtue of courage “in the face of oppression, in defense of liberty, even if death is the most likely outcome”. There are concrete tales of self-sacrifice, such as a combat engineer, Vitaly Skakun, who gave his life to destroy a bridge and slow the Russian advance – an act heralded as a “Stoic stand” of heroic fortitude. These stories echo ancient Stoic heroes and have served to inspire Ukrainians to persist.
At the same time, Stoicism would counsel not just bravery but also wisdom and temperance in prosecuting the war. Ukrainian and allied leaders must make rational decisions unswayed by panic or fury. The Stoic mindset reminds us that rage at the aggressor, while understandable, should not lead to indiscriminate actions. For instance, rather than responding to atrocities with blind vengeance, Ukraine’s government has focused on disciplined defense and international law (seeking justice through war crime tribunals, for example, rather than condoning war crimes in return). This aligns with Seneca’s admonition that anger hurts us more than any enemy can by causing self-destructive behavior. President Zelenskyy’s speeches often appeal to universal values and hope, rather than hatred, keeping moral high ground. Such restraint is strategic: Stoicism teaches that keeping one’s character and humanity intact even under extreme provocation is crucial – it prevents moral injury and helps in post-war reconciliation. Furthermore, Ukraine and NATO have had to balance courage with temperance to avoid uncontrolled escalation. By staying calm and focusing on what is within their control – fortifying defenses, seeking diplomatic support – rather than dwelling on the uncertainty of Russia’s next move, they follow a pragmatic Stoic template. The West’s refusal to be terrorized by nuclear threats, yet also its careful avoidance of direct NATO-Russia clashes, reflects Stoic moderation. The Ukrainian case shows that a Stoic approach – resilient, dutiful, and self-controlled – can galvanize a society to withstand aggression and garner global respect.
Few conflicts are as emotionally charged and seemingly intractable as the Israel-Palestine struggle. Decades of violence, retaliation, and mistrust have created a cycle that leadership on both sides struggles to break. Stoicism offers a set of principles that could be transformative if applied to this impasse, emphasizing justice, empathy, and understanding over hatred. One of the core Stoic insights apt for this conflict is Marcus Aurelius’s reminder that those who wrong or oppose us do so out of ignorance or misguided values, not because they are inherently monsters. This perspective can help leaders and citizens move beyond demonizing the other side. For Israeli and Palestinian decision-makers, adopting a Stoic outlook might mean acknowledging the shared humanity in their adversaries and the futility of perpetual vengeance. Marcus Aurelius wrote that human beings are “made for co-operation” and that to “act against one another” or to hate each other is against the natural order. In practical terms, this could encourage initiatives that foster communication and recognize mutual needs, rather than zero-sum thinking.
A Stoic approach to this conflict would first demand temperance – control over destructive emotions. Leaders should strive to calm the flames of public anger instead of stoking them. Stoicism teaches that decisions made in anger are rarely just. Seneca warned that anger is “a brief madness” that makes one incapable of seeing right from wrong. If Israeli and Palestinian leaders could emulate Stoic temperance, they would condemn atrocities and pursue security, but also firmly reject rash overreactions that harm civilians or foreclose peace. This could translate into avoiding collective punishment policies or inflammatory rhetoric that treats whole populations as enemies. It also means having the courage to resist hardline pressures from one’s own side when those pressures push toward unjust actions. For example, pursuing justice in Stoic terms means punishing actual wrongdoers proportionately (those committing terrorism or violent crimes) but protecting innocent life at all costs. Showing mercy or humanitarian concern, as difficult as that may be in wartime, aligns with Seneca’s ideal of clemency as a ruler’s strength. There have been historical moments of such Stoic-like leadership – for instance, moments when ceasefires were upheld to allow aid for civilians, or when officials acknowledged the pain of the other side. These are seeds of empathy that can be nurtured.
Stoicism’s emphasis on wisdom also means looking at the long-term consequences rather than immediate passions. In the context of Israel-Palestine, wise leadership would involve asking: what truly leads to lasting security and a flourishing society? The Stoic answer centers on living in accordance with virtue and reason. Practically, this suggests that peace and stability come not from humiliating or annihilating the other side, but from addressing legitimate grievances through dialogue and fair compromise (aligned with justice), while maintaining one’s own integrity. It requires a broad perspective – the kind Stoics practice with the “view from above” meditation, picturing human affairs as small in the grand scheme, which often softens ego-driven stubbornness. A leader imbued with Stoicism might recall that fortune can shift (today’s victor may suffer tomorrow) and that hate only begets more hate. This could encourage more magnanimous statesmanship. For example, negotiating prisoner exchanges or agreements even when politically costly could be seen as an act of wisdom and courage to break the cycle of resentment. Stoic cosmopolitanism, the idea that all people are fundamentally citizens of one common humanity, is especially relevant in this conflict divided along ethnic and religious lines. It reminds all parties that at the end of the day, mothers on each side grieve the same, and children on each side deserve a life free of fear. By focusing on this shared human reality – a very Stoic focus on common rational nature – leaders might find the moral urgency to seek peace. Admittedly, applying Stoicism here is challenging, but the philosophy would insist that peace-making is a virtuous endeavor even when difficult. As Epictetus claimed, Stoic principles naturally lead to “concord in a state, and peace among nations”. That is the ultimate goal: to replace the “symbiotic relationship of violence” with mutual cooperation, which Stoicism holds is our true nature. In short, Stoicism would guide conflicted societies to temper anger with empathy, uphold justice with mercy, and use wisdom to prefer diplomacy over domination.
The presidency of Donald Trump (2017–2021) in the United States tested democratic institutions and societal cohesion in novel ways. Trump’s leadership style was often characterized by extreme rhetoric, norm-breaking, and the incitement of strong emotions – both among his fervent supporters and his outraged opponents. In such a polarized environment, Stoic principles can help both leaders and ordinary citizens respond more constructively. One key Stoic lesson is to remain unswayed by provocation or flattery, maintaining one’s moral principles regardless of the conduct of others. The Stoics admired leaders who were “unperturbed by insults” and not carried away by populist praise. President Trump was notoriously reactive to criticism, often lashing out on social media or in speeches, which is decidedly un-Stoic behavior. A Stoic-influenced leader in the Trump era (for instance, a governor, judge, or senator) would practice the opposite: meeting inflammatory remarks with calm, and sticking to facts rather than personal attacks. We saw glimpses of this in officials who tried to stay level-headed under pressure. For example, former Defense Secretary James Mattis – an admirer of Marcus Aurelius – chose to resign once he felt his advice grounded in long-term strategy and alliances was ignored. His action exemplified Stoic integrity, placing duty to principle above clinging to power. Mattis had often cited how Marcus surrounded himself with honest counsel and welcomed dissenting views, unlike Trump who often dismissed or fired those who disagreed. The Stoic view is that true leadership is a “state of mind” defined by virtue, not titles, and Mattis demonstrated this by doing what he thought right for the country’s security, even at personal cost.
For society at large, Stoicism offers tools to avoid being emotionally manipulated by political turbulence. The dichotomy of control is highly pertinent: Americans could not control Trump’s tweets or behavior, but they could control their own reactions and civic engagement. Stoic wisdom would advise citizens not to fall into despair or constant rage, but to focus on concrete actions within reach – such as voting, peaceful protest, community dialogue, and supporting the rule of law. A Stoic response to heated political news is to pause and ask, “What part of this is actually under my control or influence?” This perspective can prevent burnout and hysteria. In fact, even investors were advised to use Stoicism to handle the volatility of the Trump era: “imagine all possible outcomes and thus fear none”, one commentator wrote regarding Trump’s policy swings, advocating the Stoic practice of premeditating challenges to stay calm. The second piece of advice was to “prioritize self-control and learn to understand what to respond to and what to ignore”, essentially not getting caught up in every provocation. This is a textbook Stoic technique – distinguish signal from noise. Many of Trump’s statements were impulsive or symbolic, so a Stoic-minded observer would reserve judgment until seeing actual results (focusing on what is real, not rumors). This approach proved useful: those who didn’t overreact to every tweet could maintain clarity and direct their energies more effectively.
Moreover, Stoicism places great weight on truth, humility, and community-mindedness – virtues that can counteract the corrosive effects of demagoguery and division. Presidential historian Jon Meacham noted the “optimistic Stoicism” of Marcus Aurelius, highlighting his commitment to truthfulness, humility, and affection for his neighbors as qualities highly relevant to contemporary politics. These are precisely the traits that can heal divisions: honesty rebuilds trust, humility allows one to admit errors or listen to opponents, and seeing fellow citizens as neighbors (rather than enemies) fosters dialogue. In practice, during Trump’s presidency and afterward, officials and citizens who embodied these Stoic virtues played important roles. Judges who impartially upheld the Constitution, election workers who calmly carried out their duties amid frenzy, or legislators who sought bipartisan solutions despite the toxic climate – all reflect Stoicism in action. They focused on what was right and within their power (their job, their honor) and refused to be “overturned” by the passions of the moment. Stoicism also teaches emotional resilience: followers practice not indulging in excessive fear of disaster. Even in the tense period after the 2020 election and the January 6th Capitol crisis, a Stoic perspective helped many maintain that the way forward was through law, patience, and courage – not panic. Indeed, the Stoics often counseled that in chaotic times, individuals must all the more live by their core values, as those are steady when externals whirl unpredictably. The Trump era, for all its turmoil, thus provided a training ground for Stoic virtues. It reminded Americans that personal character is in one’s control even when the broader political environment is not, and that responding to provocation with measured reason is more effective than meeting fire with fire. By “keeping calm and carrying on” (to borrow a famous British Stoic-like slogan), many institutions weathered the storm. This suggests that Stoicism’s emphasis on principle, rationality, and self-restraint is not only relevant but crucial for leadership and citizenship in a polarized democracy.
From ancient battlefields to modern political battlegrounds, Stoicism has served as a guide for navigating crisis with integrity and clear-minded resolve. The Stoic framework – focusing on what one can control, practicing virtue (wisdom, justice, courage, temperance), and acknowledging our shared humanity – proves remarkably adaptable to contemporary conflicts. We have seen how Marcus Aurelius governed by these principles amid war, how leaders like Cato and Washington drew inspiration from Stoic ideals to defend liberty, and how a POW like James Stockdale survived unspeakable trials by applying Stoic endurance. In today’s global conflicts, Stoicism’s counsel is just as pertinent. It urges Ukrainian defenders to remain courageous yet measured, Israelis and Palestinians to seek justice without hate, and American society to uphold reason and civility over partisan rage. None of these challenges have easy solutions – philosophical wisdom is not a magic wand – but Stoicism offers a kind of moral and mental toolkit to approach them more effectively. It reminds leaders to be philosopher-kings in spirit even if not in title: to prefer truth and virtue over expediency, as Marcus Aurelius did, and to view power as a responsibility to serve others. It reminds societies that anger and fear are poor guides compared to reason and mutual empathy. Perhaps most importantly, Stoicism instills hope grounded in realism. As Epictetus taught, while we cannot control all events, we can always control our attitude and actions – and therein lies the freedom to shape history. In a world rife with strife, this ancient philosophy encourages us to respond not with despair or aggression, but with stoic resolve: doing what is right, striving for peace and stability, and bearing hardships with dignity. Such an approach, forged in the turmoil of antiquity, may be exactly what is needed to chart a wiser course through the conflicts of our modern age.