The making of American domestic policy 257political system, nevertheless they do illustrate a number of the distinctive
characteristics of American political life. First, there is no single channel
through which decisions are made. In many countries it is clear that for im-
portant decisions there is only one accepted route – a single person, a single
group, a single party – and that attempts to get decisions taken by any other
route will fail, sometimes with serious consequences for those who try. In the
United States there are elite groups who play an important role in the way
decisions are taken, but there is no single power elite. Important decisions
can be made by the Congress, or by the president, or the judiciary; they can
be made at the level of the federal government, or at state level. Nor is it the
case that each of these institutions is internally coherent; there are warring
groups within each branch of the government, and furthermore the branches
of government battle against each other. Each branch has different consti-
tutional powers and, most importantly, different procedures through which
they must act.
Second, the processes of decision-making are almost always deeply plural-
istic, involving a number of different groups, each pursuing their interests by
whatever seems to them to be the most fruitful route. Groups choose to fight
where they can hope to win, and if thwarted they will move the focus of their
actions from one arena to another, from the Congress to the president, from
the legislature to the judiciary, from the federal government to the states. Al-
though the federal system can be a cause of deadlocks in the decision-making
process, it has the advantage of allowing the states to pursue policies which
the federal government rejects. An example is stem cell research using hu-
man embryos, which many scientists believe can lead to the cure or preven-
tion of many diseases. This process is deeply controversial, particularly with
Christian groups who see it as involving the murder of the embryo. Because
of the opposition to this type of research President Bush has only allowed the
use of federal funds for a very limited range of research; congressional leaders
have promoted legislation to enable federal funds to be used more widely, but
President Bush has threatened to veto any such legislation. However, a small
number of states, including Connecticut, have passed their own legislation
to provide state funding for stem cell research, and others are considering
doing so. The federal structure therefore allows the states to follow their own
policies and in so doing to put pressure on the federal government to follow
suit. Another rather different example is policy on same-sex marriage. Mar-
riage is a matter for state law, and federal legislation on the subject could be
ruled unconstitutional. President Bush has therefore been urging Congress
to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but so far
without success. However, a large number of states have amended their own
constitutions or passed laws banning same-sex marriages, and a handful of
states have made them, or civil unions, lawful.
The fragmentation of legal authority in the Constitution results in a po-
litical system with multiple points of access, making it possible for pressure
groups to pursue their interests through numerous channels. The policy
outcomes are inevitably compromises, sometimes the lowest common de-