I need some history examples of this Please.

[Heartsjoy]

.  Events and decisions that seem significant to us today may pale when we see how they play out in future years.  And the reverse is true.  Some of G.W.Bush’s decisions, of which many of us have not yet learned, may emerge as highly influential in the history that will unfold in the years ahead.

 

This is for a 12 grade honors history discussion class I'm leading.

 

Can you think of some past presidential decisions that seemed insignificant at the time but turned out to be highly influential?  Also the reverse?

 

[Tsuga]

I think that Gorbachev thought that a lot of what he was doing was minor reforms, and many others thought it would be inconsequential. They thought that he wasn't doing enough, or that it would all go back to normal. But it turned out that those cracks broke the dam and from leaving Afghanistan to Poland, the entire world is forever changed, and we still haven't even seen the end of the massive changes. The Soviet Union was a colossal empire that brought literacy (I saw with my own eyes) to millions upon millions of people. Now the effects are receding and from the streets of Kabul where women no longer walk totally freely, all the way to Czech Republic which has nicer roads than my own state... what a fascinating, fascinating chain of events.

[Heartsjoy]

Thank you. This is exactly what I'm looking for.

 

[Farrar]

The first things that spring to mind for me aren't legislative or executive decisions, but judicial ones. I feel like there have been a lot of supreme court cases that were decided on something specific to the law, but which have ended up having pretty far reaching effects down the line that were probably not foreseen. For example, the Supreme Court first confirmed that corporations have the same rights as people in the early 1800's. That has really shaped a lot of our political landscape today in ways that I'm sure the court couldn't have imagined. 

[EndOfOrdinary]

The National Environmental Policy Act, passed by Richard Nixon, has a provision which allows the citizenship to sue the U.S. Government if the voices and concerns of the people are not adequately met.  This is a small line item in a very large act.  The entire environmental movement stems from this policy.  The need for an Environmental Impact Statement and the formalized requirement that citizenship has a federal need to have their comments addressed is what non-profit environmental activism is based upon. 

 

 

[Junie]

Google and I are good friends:

 

Maybe this would help?:  http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/01/the-10-worst-decisions-by-us-presidents-lessons-for-obama-a-new-blog-series/

 

 

[Heartsjoy]

The first things that spring to mind for me aren't legislative or executive decisions, but judicial ones. I feel like there have been a lot of supreme court cases that were decided on something specific to the law, but which have ended up having pretty far reaching effects down the line that were probably not foreseen. For example, the Supreme Court first confirmed that corporations have the same rights as people in the early 1800's. That has really shaped a lot of our political landscape today in ways that I'm sure the court couldn't have imagined. 

Do you have time to fill me in on the specifics? The original case and a few subsequent cases that demonstrate the extent of the effects?

Thanks,

Melody

[Heartsjoy]

The National Environmental Policy Act, passed by Richard Nixon, has a provision which allows the citizenship to sue the U.S. Government if the voices and concerns of the people are not adequately met.  This is a small line item in a very large act.  The entire environmental movement stems from this policy.  The need for an Environmental Impact Statement and the formalized requirement that citizenship has a federal need to have their comments addressed is what non-profit environmental activism is based upon. 

I see the small line item being huge. Was it seen as a big change at the time also?

[Heartsjoy]

Google and I are good friends:

 

Maybe this would help?:  http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/01/the-10-worst-decisions-by-us-presidents-lessons-for-obama-a-new-blog-series/

These were fascinating to read. But most seemed to be situations where the electorate saw the extent of the problem within a few years. I'm looking for legislation that the electorate feels is drastically wrong only to find out later it wasn't such a big deal, or the opposite legislation that seems fine at the time but drastically changes things 30-50 years down the road.

[EndOfOrdinary]

I see the small line item being huge. Was it seen as a big change at the time also?

 

Not a big deal at the time at all....from my environmental ethics class:

 

"The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law on the first day of 1970, stands in stark contrast to other environmental legislation enacted in the 1970s and 1980s. Beginning with the Clean Air Act, passed in late 1970, environmental legislation became increasingly prescriptive, detailed, and complex. NEPA, on the other hand, was short, simple, and comprehensive. It established a national policy to protect the environment, created a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and required that environmental impact statements be prepared for major federal actions having a significant effect on the environment. This simple Act can be compared to the current crop of environmental laws that take up hundreds of pages and generate bookshelves worth of regulations. With little statutory guidance, the newly created CEQ set about building a staff and staking out an agenda. CEQ's highest priority was to become the federal environmental policy arm. The environmental impact statement and annual report requirements were both lower priority."

 

It was that provision for the Environmental Impact Statements which rocked serious future boats.  The idea at the time was that an organization just had to show that it was not going to destroy the environment or that it had adequate provisions to put things back to rights.  The public was allowed to comment and the organization had to acknowledge their concerns.  It seemed rather small and more a nod to democracy rather than anything essential.  What wound up happening was full blown environmental movement and grassroots organizing. 

 

There is no other nation on the planet that give this right to citizens.  Secondly, the law is stated with the word "citizen" not voter.  This means it is one of the few which allow youth the same protections as an adult.  To my knowledge, this type of language is no longer used specifically to eliminate all people under the age of 18.

[Heartsjoy]

Thank you,

 

This is definitely something that started small and has grown significant.