If we split the difference between nature and nurture we could come up with a reasonable political philosophy

Although there is a gene-culture co-evolution or "dual inheritance" that takes place between nature and nurture, if we split the difference between nature and nurture, which some think is 70% nature and 30% nurture, we could come up with a reasonable political philosophy.

Modern liberalism is about 100 percent on the 30% side of nurture and conservatives are on are that 70% nature side, although both sides approve of individualism. Liberalism wants the government to insure a collective individual freedom, which tends to move toward socialism/communism and ends up taking away individual freedom, while conservatism want unchecked individual freedom, especially for capitalism (libertarianism), which tends to create societies ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income that end up taking away individual freedom.

If we look a little deeper at what that 70% nature side is telling us about human nature, the science of sociobiology and common sense show us that human nature has been affirmed throughout human history to this day as being basically kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual, marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, territorial, and even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of successful selection, followed by individual selection.

Sociobiologist E.O. Wilson has found that in successful survival and reproduction, "within groups, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals, but groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals." And “hereditary altruists form groups so cooperative and well-organized as to out-compete non-altruists groups.” (“The Social Conquest of the Earth.”)  Wilson doesn't emphasize enough that altruism was developed to enhance the survival success of kin and ethnic group, but being-for-others almost disappears beyond the related genetic pool.

Cultures can operate for a time with behavior that goes against this basic human nature, with such experiments as Marxism, but cultures are eventually pulled back by the biological and genetic leash of real human nature to cultures that better reflect real human nature, and humans then work within and adapt to the environments they find themselves living in.

This suggests to reason and instinct that ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates are the best political configuration for humans beings to live within. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates or regions could even be established legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of powers and states, protected by federalism. It may require a few constitutional amendments to give more power to the states to move toward an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, but that is far preferable to radical and marauding Marxism or Fascism, or the political dissimulations of today based on flawed definitions of human nature that have brought us radically destructive civil disruptions, or even civil war, and which are now increasing across the world within unworkable multicultural multi-ethnic societies.