Yes, but usually more in the nature of disappointed hopes than unrealized fears. E.g., in the late '60s and early '70s many American leftists were expecting “the Revolution,” or believed it had already started. There were many real sociocultural revolutions in that period – the civil rights revolution, the sexual revolution, the feminist revolution – but, in hindsight, political/economic revolution was never at any point a serious possibility. Allowing for incremental, evolutionary changes on a generational time-scale, distribution of wealth and power in America is pretty much the same now as it was then.
Well, there were a few after 9/11…some people claimed that the government would round up all Arabs and put them in camps. Others claimed that Bush would find some way to cancel the elections and rule by decree.
When NYC was talking about banning smoking in most public buildings the restaurant and bar owners were shouting about how it would put them out of business.
Of course, nothing happened.
Actually, that’s not true. I seem to recall a study that showed a slight INCREASE in business in these establishments after the ban took effect.
When there was a proposal on the Florida ballot in 2004 to raise the minimum wage to $6.40 an hour, those campaigning against it predicted it would drive a lot of businesses out of business, and/or increase unemployment. Neither has happened, AFAIK. But the new wage has been in effect only since 1/1/06.
Neither of those has happened exactly but . . .
Oh yeah. Plenty.
Perhaps the ultimate failed leftist predictions were those of Marx. Capitalism was doomed to failure. Everybody was destined to become an employee. Standards of living for the worker would decline. Socialist revolution would inevitably engulf the world etc.
We could also look at prediction of leftist environmentalist/social commentators like Paul Ehrlich
It’s a gross generalisation, but it seems that when leftist mispredictions fail to come true the soothsayers tend to claim the credit for the failure. That is, they claim that because people heard their warnings they took steps to avoid them. This is certainly the case with Ehrlich, who claimed a large part of the credit for the reduction in population growth. Similarly the failure of almost all of Rachel Carson’s prediction’s are claimed as proof of the great value of her work. And Marxists invariably claim that it was because capitalists saw the truth of his work that they fought so hard to make sure his predictions didn’t come true.
I guess that’s probably because it’s harder to justify a failed conservative prediction because the things predicted tend to be situations that everybody in power was already actively involved with. As such when the prediction of Communist domination of Asia fails it obviously failed despite all efforts of the USA to avoid it and all efforts of China to promote it. In contrast a prediction of environmental catastrophe through population growth or collapse of capitalism are things that few people were working to overcome before the prediction was made, so when the prediction fails the soothsayer can claim credit for the failure through implementing changes and if it comes true she can claim credit for the predictions. It’s a kind of reverse self-fulfilling prophecy: a self-defeating prophecy I guess. It’s impossible to lose with those sorts of ‘predictions’ unless they are made as sealed envelope predictions, which they never are.
“If we pass legislation legalizing the licensed carrying of concealed weapons in (your state here), next thing you know there’ll be vigilante and road rage shootings all over the place!”
Of course, there’s the less hysterical (but hardly more accurate) corollary:
“Pass the concealed carry law and hoodlums will be afraid to hold up honest citizens; the crime rate will plummet.”
Thanks for the thoughtful responses, everyone. There’s some good examples.
If people keep talking nice like this, the next thing you know the pit will be a hot tub party.
From my own youth:
“If we elect a Catholic President, the Pope will run America.”
“If we let them put floride in our drinking water, we’ll all turn into Communists.”
I found another one. Minneapolis, MN, recently banned smoking in Hennepin County bars and restaurants. Opposition to the bill predicted that all the restaurants and bars would go out of business as a result, but turns out they were wrong (cite and cite).
“I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”
– Jack Valenti, testifying before Congress in 1982
There are tons of them in which someone looks at a current trend and draws it out as a straight line on a graph to some future time and draws dire conclusions.
Population doomsday estimates had that flaw especially when they didn’t take into account things like new technology making food more abundant.
These types of claims still seem popular. I have read several recently that make claims like:
“The non-muslim white population of Europe has fallen below replacement fertility levels while the muslim European population shows much greater population growth. Therefore, if you draw this graph out to the 2175, you will see that Europe will be 95% muslim by that time”.
Current trends do not prove trends in the future. There will probably other things to take into account by then.
But, based on other states’ experiences after raising their MW, I ain’t too worried. See this study: http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150
I remember that. I believe it was presented as a shockwave “game” where really you only had two options in the game (both very early). It was to illustrate how out of control the situation would become. One of those options was which former Saddam right hand to install as the “strong man” to keep the country in line after the invasion.
Same as in CA, and as Mach Tuck pointed out, business actually increased overall.
But a few have come rather close. The '3 day waiting period for handguns" in CA did grown to 10 days (or is it more?) and has extended to rifles and shotguns also, with a requirement for a class, and the banning of some dangerous looking “assault rifles” :rolleyes: . And, quite a few non-firearms have been banned, such as nun-chucks. So, maybe butterknifes are next? :dubious:
SoAfrica did teeter towards commumism, and it’s not out of the woods yet- and there were some localized bloodbaths. However, the situation was/is no-where near as bad as the worst that was prophesized.
And, as Captain Amazing pointed out, the “Domino theory” wasn’t entirely wrong.
Mmmm . . . Why would anyone have cited those things as frightening “slippery slope” possibilities before the 3-day waiting period was enacted? I mean, what’s frightening about them?
They are steps on the way to a total ban. And they have done nothing in reducing the rate of violent crime. They *did *predict that the Waiting period would become longer and longer. But let’s not turn this into a Gun Control debate. In any case, these steps are further along the path of “if we register handguns, the next thing you know you’ll have to register to buy a butterknife and wait for nine days.” (although no one ever said “butterknife”, the wait is now longer than 9 days)
Would it be politic to mention Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist?
How about, “If we elect Ronald Reagan, he’ll blow up the world”?
Last time I looked, the world was still here.
Perfectly politic to mention it, but it might be foolish to take it seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_environmentalist#Criticism