GOVT 2302 Retrospective and Conclusion

1
GOVT 2302 Retrospective and Conclusion
2
The Courts

• The courts are primary policy-making institutions
  on these issues because the courts, particularly
  the federal courts, historically have seen
  themselves as the protectors of individual
  liberties against the popular will of legislative
  majorities. 
• The activism of the federal courts on these
  issues has allowed policy to be changed through
  litigation which is outside of the normal
  political process. 

3
The Presidency

• Presidents have generally provided only symbolic
  leadership with respect to these moral
  controversies and have exercised very limited
  decision-making authority in these areas. 
• Republican presidents have exploited these moral
  controversies in an attempt to mobilize their
  base of political support among conservative
  voters, while Democratic presidents have largely
  tried to evade these issues in an effort to avoid
  alienating moderate voters while simultaneously
  not abandoning their base of support among
  liberals. 

4
The Congress and State Legislatures

• As elected bodies, legislative assemblies
  generally pass laws that reflect the will of
  popular majorities. This has pitted them against
  against the courts in the battles over these
  moral controversies.
• Electoral pressures encourage politically
  conservative legislators to take leadership roles
  in legislating traditional values, while
  providing incentives for many liberal legislators
  to take low profile roles in the debates over
  proposed legislation. 

5
Bureaucracies

• As a general rule, federal agencies have limited
  jurisdiction over policies involving moral
  controversies. 
• The oversight functions of the political
  institutions of American government constrain the
  ability of federal agencies to implement changes
  in these areas. 

6
Federalism

• Most of the regulatory activities of government
  related to these moral controversies arise under
  the police powers of the states.
• Enforcement of social regulatory policies often
  depends on the willingness of state or local
  officials to comply with federal laws, mandates,
  or court orders. 

7
Public Opinion

• Public opinion can accurately be described as
  conservative or moderately.  In limited examples,
  it might be possible to characterize public
  opinion as liberal.  In either case, the opinions
  held by the general public are always less
  intense than those of the advocacy groups who are
  supporting social change. 
• Social regulatory policy decisions that will
  result in major revisions to community standards
  or norms will undoubtedly be met with resistance
  by the general public. 

8
Interest Groups

• Unlike economic regulatory policy issues, the
  debate over social regulatory policy issues is
  most often dominated by single-issue groups which
  are most responsible for increasing public
  awareness and the political significance of these
  moral controversies.
• Because single-issue interest groups usually
  articulate their arguments as absolute moral
  imperatives, they tend to polarize the political
  debate on social regulatory policy issues.