Road construction→ Next (?) Miles : Forks in the Political Road(s) Ahead

In just the next six and a half months, two combinations of public policy issues are going to--or should, if things go normally-- be determined and they are interrelated in their import and ramifications.

First, in just eight days, we're to learn whether the California Democratic presidential primary validates Sanders' claims (as I hope) as a still-to-be-reckoned contender for the party's nomination. Five* other states are also voting** but California could, all by itself, ratify Sanders' place going into the national convention next month.
* ( Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota**, South Dakota)
** Caucus

On the 23rd of June, British voters in Britain decide on a referendum on continued membership in the European Union (E.U.), voting to either quit or to remain (sort of) in that organization. Only a victory for the proponents of leaving the E.U. shall really resolve an issue. For if the "Remain" camp wins, this question shall be revisited.

It now appears possible that, unless there's a very lop-sided victory for "Remain in the E.U.," the referendum results could cost Prime Minister Cameron his place at the head of the government--with either a new party leader replacing Cameron or, more momentous, an early dissolution of Parliament (by a two-thirds vote) followed by a new parliamentary election--which, in the current circumstances, should see Labour's leader, Jeremy Corbyn, contest Cameron's sucessor to head the next elected government.

Later this summer--depending on what happens in the next several wdeeks-- the U.S. Republicans will either nominate Donald Trump formally at their Ohio convention or they'll tear up the rule-book and install a different nominee
from the convention floor. In the latter case, Trump shall have to decide whether to leave the quest for the White House or run as an independent candidate.

So, by the end of the year,

1) Britain could

1a) Remain in the E.U. with its current prime minister

1b) Remain, but barely, and have a new Conservative prime minister

1c) Remain, but see Cameron's government defeated in a new general election and replaced by a Labour government. (Corbyn)

1d) Have chosen to quit the E.U. , with any of a.) b.) or c.) above.

The U.S. could have its first woman president-elect; it's first popular Leftist president-elect; or its first " 'Reality'-Television-star" president-elect.

The permutations include

Status quo Britain or
...................... Britain out of the E.U. &
............ Cameron at No. 10 Downing St. or
............another Conservative leader at No. 10 or............Corbyn and Labour at No. 10 &
→ →→→w/ Clinton in the W.H.

Status quo Britain or
...................... Britain out of the E.U. &
............ Cameron at No. 10 Downing St. or
............another Conservative leader at No. 10 or............Corbyn and Labour at No. 10 &
→ →→→w/ Sanders in the W.H.

Status quo Britain or
...................... Britain out of the E.U. &
............ Cameron at No. 10 Downing St. or
............another Conservative leader at No. 10 or............Corbyn and Labour at No. 10 &
→ →→→w/ Trump in the W.H.

It's a fine summary. What is your conclusion?

Triple-witching hours ahead. Drivers, please proceed with due intrepid-a-tion.

Speaking for myself only, I favor (as in "hope for")

(Sanders for (the) "U.S.", Corbyn for (the) (them) "U.K." )

Can history tell us anything as to the eventual outcome of these events?

The 1860s was a time of great division between South and the North. In the end the North won.

Currently this country is experiencing a time equally divisive. Those of the Right and those of the Left don't begin to discuss differences.

I say the Southern states will not lose a second time.

To many people, 1865 seems like only yesterday.

>4 Urquhart:

For me, the answer is a much-qualified "yes & no".

But for editors and managers at The Guardian, the answer is a very loud and unqualified "Yes!" I regard "reading history" as not impossible but a very specialized art-form-- getting things right is as difficult as it is easy to get them wrong.

The Guardian high muckety mucks are dyed in the wool believers in the iron law of history. History tells us Corbyn is electorally doomed; similarly, the Trump phenomenon is impossible. We think we are experiencing it but we must be wrong because HISTORY has already demonstrated that it cannot happen. interestingly enough, though there's never been one in the U.S., HISTORY now indicates that a female president is the just-ahead inevitability. It's enough to make one suspect that some people ( flashing neon-sign "Guardian" ) are shamlessly and cynically using HISTORY to simply validate their prejudices.

>5 carmody: Which result will be a win for the South? Both Trump & Clinton are from New York. If Clinton wins she will be able to thank Hispanic & Black voters (many in the South) . If Trump wins it will be thanks to poor white voters (many in the North)

>5 carmody:

IMO,

In certain respects, 1865 was "only yesterday."

However, the major conflicts which provoked the U.S. Civil War are no longer an issue.* A struggle which pitted a Southern ancestral agrarian patriarchy against an emergent Northern banking & industrial order saw the agrarian interests defeated. This preeminence is neither contested nor contestable today--even in the former Confederate States of America.

* The major abiding controversy of that war is the ever-open matter of the scope of federal legal prerogatives versus those of individual states. ( a.k.a. the "states' rights" issue.)

6>proximity1

"proximity1:
However, the major conflicts which provoked the U.S. Civil War are no longer an issue.*"

Many people today believe that States' Rights was an important issue in 1865. Not the only issue but definitely a major issue.

See:
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/statesrights.html?r...
and
http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.html

And of course many people today believe that States' Rights is an important issue.

So we agree to disagree. Lots of opinions on both sides.

U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan (R./WI) has endorsed Donald Trump's candidacy so it seems now that one permutation is foreclosed. There won't be a convention-floor effort to choose a different nominee--unless, of course, in the meantime, Trump does something that costs him Ryan's endorsement.

>9 carmody::
While response diversity in government (Broadly "States' Rights" as an outsider sees it) is an important issue in all governments of larger countries (not so much in San Marino, Andorra, and Lichtenstein), there is also the problem of issues that effect the whole country, like slavery and ending the silly idea of "race", medical care, and gun control, should have a centralised response, consistent from one end of the jurisdiction to the other. "The South" has been reconstituted, and on a set of issues that other countries seem to have found answers to up to two centuries ago.

In regards to Donald Trump, he is the product not only a pop culture icon but also the vapid contempt of the GOP Establishment of the voters who elected them to do what they were supposed to do: oppose the policies of the current administration. Having said this, Trump remains an unusual candidate that is inapplicable to any conventional political wisdom. He has exposed the fatal flaw in the GOP primary system as Sen. Sanders has done on the Dem. primary system. Now the political system is seriously in new territory, floating along as if on air. It is difficult for either political party establishment to control events in spite of the extreme media narratives attempting to pretend otherwise. Neither Trump nor Sanders are going to go away. They are now the moving pieces paving the road to...what could it be?

>12 walterhistory: In regards to Donald Trump, he is the product not only a pop culture icon but also the vapid contempt of the GOP Establishment of the voters who elected them to do what they were supposed to do: oppose the policies of the current administration.

Are you saying the GOP has not opposed the policies of the current administration?

I'm also questioning your assertion that the legislators of the GOP were elected to oppose the policies of the current administration. Perhaps my idea about legislators is coloured by my upbringing in a multi-party system famous for compromise, but I had the impression that during the last millennium at least the party in power tried to pass legislation, while the opposition tried to change it so both weren't exactly getting what they wanted, but at least government was able to do its job.

Can the Americans here provide some more insight into how historically the two parties worked or didn't work together to do what they were chosen to do: govern?

Until comparatively recently, there were enough politicians in both parties who understood that governing the country was their primary job; and that required compromises. Not that either side often agreed with each other on anything else, but they got the job done.

There was also an institutional respect. Whether you agreed with the 'Distinguished Member from 'X'', he (most likely he) had been elected to Congress, making him a part of an rather exclusive club. A member that you couldn't blackball out of the club (barring very extraordinary circumstances). So, working with him was the only option you had.

It wasn't until the 'No Compromise' policy became the norm, up to (throwing a tantrum) shutting down the government if you didn't get your way that much (not all) of the current deadlocks began.

Because if you're not willing to compromise, then eventually your opponents stop offering compromises.

"Can the Americans here provide some more insight into how historicall y the two parties worked or didn't work together to do what they were chosen to do: govern?"

There is support for both these views.

So you have to be more specific. It's a long and checkered (chequered) history.

Wealth has almost always owned and controlled both "major" parties. But that has not always ensured their cooperation. Sometimes wealthy interests themselves are divided--as in an extreme case during the Civil War (1860-1865). And sometimes power-struggles break out within or between parties or within Congress or between Congress and the president.

Also, the organization and use of power within Congress has changed dramatically over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. From the late 1880s/90s through the 1960s, Congress had a very strongly imposed seniority system--the Senate was practically always this way but not so the House. But with the rise of the seniority system in the House, the Speaker of the House together with only a few of the chairmen of the most important standing committees* (and they were always all men) had practically dictatorial power in the Congress.

These men could literally sit down and decide among themselves what a piece of legislation would contain, what it would do, and then they could see it voted and passed in each chamber.

This enabled the Speaker to meet with the president and virtually decide between themselves what laws would be introduced and passed in the legislative session --and the Speaker knew he could deliver on his agreements with the president.

This changed fundamentally before the end of John McCormack's tenure during the very early 1970s. House members staged a mini rebellion and changed the standing rules to drastically reduce and alter the seniority system which survives but in a much modified form. Now individual committee chairmen are more powerful and the Speaker comparatively much less powerful than at the height of the seniority system's rule.

* key Congressional committees during this period;

House of Representatives--

House Rules committee
Ways and Means committee
House Appropriations committee
Finance and Banking committee
Budget committee
House Judiciary committee
Armed Services committee
Commerce committee
House Foreign Affairs committee
Agriculture committee
Energy committee

Senate :
Rules committee
Budget committee
Senate Appropriations committee
Armed Services committee
Foreign Relations
Banking committee
Judiciary committee
Commerce committee
Finance committee

Some notable House Speakers during this period:

Thomas Reed
Joseph Cannon
Nicholas Longworth
Sam Rayburn
John Mc Cormack (last of the period)