This chapter focuses on the challenging subject of politics and choice to underscore, in yet another way, the intimate connection between values, facts, and judgment. Five cases are used to illustrate the dimensions of choice in politics: (1) Socrates’s choice not to flee Athens to avoid an unjust punishment; (2) James Madison’s choice of a new political theory to guide the American Constitution of 1787 and the federal republic it created; (3) the choice by German citizens (and key leaders) of Adolf Hitler as chancellor in 1932 and 1933; (4) President John F. Kennedy’s choice of a blockade to counter the Soviet Union’s placement of offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba in the fall of 1962; and (5) the decision to commit U.S. forces to an invasion of Iraq in response to the events of September 11, 2001, to further the war on terrorism.

These case studies invite critical thinking about four important themes in politics: political obligation, political creativity, responsible exercise of freedom, and power politics in the nuclear age.

The theme of political obligation is illuminated in the case of Socrates, who was executed in 399 B.C. by Athenian authorities because of his incessant criticisms of Athenian democracy. Despite being condemned to death, he was unwilling to abandon his city or his friends. Socrates was willing to die for his beliefs, and thus, he offers an example of a man of principle and of civic loyalty. As admirable as we might consider Socrates’s choice, his case raises some serious questions. For example, do we uncritically accept Socrates’s statement that “whether in battle or in a court of law” we “must do” as our country orders? Do we accept that “punishment is to be endured in silence”? Even in battle, is following orders a legitimate excuse for violating international law or for committing war crimes, genocide, or other crimes against humanity? Is there no obligation to speak out against unjust punishment?

The challenge for James Madison, the subject of our second case study, was as follows: How can we reconcile liberty and authority in a large state? According to conventional wisdom, republican government was possible only in a small political community—for example, a city-state such as Athens, Florence, Venice, or Geneva. Moreover, according to the conventional wisdom, a large state could be governed only by a monarch or a despot. How, then, were Americans to deal with this dilemma? Madison’s theory of the extensive republic constituted a creative breakthrough in political thought because he proposed that Americans could work out a new synthesis. This new federal model allowed the states to control their local affairs while giving the new central government authority in matters concerning all members of the Union.

The third theme, responsible exercise of freedom, is the focus of a discussion of the choice made by German citizens to support Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime during the early 1930s. The notion of the people as a group that is not to be trusted is woven throughout political thinking. Aristotle was suspicious of Greek democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville worried about democratic despotism. John Stuart Mill worried about the tyranny of the majority. Why did people vote for the Nazis? The choice of Hitler was fateful; it doomed German democracy, brought on World War II, made the Holocaust possible, and split Germany into two parts from 1945 to 1990. A number of conditions in Germany at the time certainly contributed to the election results. But in the end, the Nazi experience illuminates the difficulty of bearing the burden of freedom under adverse conditions. Too few people in Germany were dedicated strongly enough to the Weimar Republic and to democratic values. The Nazi experience raises this question: Which values, which circumstances, and which leadership judgments make the responsible exercise of freedom possible?

The next case study about politics and choice explores President John F. Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, which came about when it was discovered that the Soviet Union had placed offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. The first choice made by Kennedy was to ensure that the missiles were removed. His second choice was to decide the means by which missile removal was to come about. The final decision boiled down to either conducting air strikes on the missile sites or instituting a blockade around the island to pressure Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev to remove the missiles. No other choice during the Cold War better illustrates the theme of power politics.

The final case study deals with the decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003. At the time, there was a strong belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or was seeking them. However, in hindsight, this assumption proved false. These events remind us that reliable information and reasonable assumptions are vital in making critical political decisions.