The Folly of the 'Hundred Days'

[babylonsister]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759302359600669.html

The Folly of the 'Hundred Days'
The term has been an unreliable indicator for presidential success; Nixon's public-relations strategy

By DAVID GREENBERG


So great were the hopes for the launch of John F. Kennedy's presidency that even before his inauguration, the president-elect was griping about the pressure he felt to work magic. "I'm sick and tired of reading how we're planning another 'hundred days' of miracles," Kennedy complained to his chief aide, Ted Sorensen, as they composed the inaugural address. "Let's put in that this won't all be finished in a hundred days or a thousand."

JFK knew that the hundred-day yardstick for measuring presidential progress was as misleading as it is ubiquitous. The roundness of the number, though aesthetically seductive, is arbitrary; and while the short time span suggests swift, purposeful action, it really means that newcomers to the office will usually be too green to demonstrate true mastery.

snip//

These presidents weren't wrong to think that their first hundred days would matter. Public opinion turns sharply in a president's favor when he's elected, and most new leaders enjoy a honeymoon that they can extend with the right mix of policy and politics. Normally, Congress perceives that the public is rooting for a new president to triumph, and its members mute or calibrate their opposition. In our image-centered politics, widely touted perceptions can be self-fulfilling. A successful hundred days can strengthen a president's hand, and a weak debut can foster the impression of amateur hour.

For all that, the hundred-day yardstick remains faulty. It places too much emphasis on easily quantifiable early achievements, directing attention to the number of laws passed. Passing laws isn't necessarily the best indicator of a strong presidency. When a president's party controls the Congress, it's easy for him to sign bills that were queued up before he arrived -- something that may hearten his supporters but doesn't attest to great vision or legislative prowess.

Many things can matter more than laws getting passed. Behind Eisenhower's lackluster debut -- he sent no domestic program to Congress -- lay an important bureaucratic reorganization and a review of national security strategy that led to his "New Look" foreign policy. The Bay of Pigs fiasco defined Kennedy's first months, as his forthright acceptance of responsibility for the botched invasion turned a disaster into a bounce in the polls. Nixon's bombing of Cambodia and his secret wiretaps were of greater consequence than any legislative action. Gerald Ford was a rare president who did define his term in office in his first hundred days -- by pardoning Nixon.

A president may also have a successful hundred days due to events outside his control. Reagan was struggling to pass his tax cuts when John Hinckley's bullets landed him in the hospital. The outpouring of sympathy, aided by Reagan's winning bedside humor, buoyed his popularity and helped him win a big victory. But that success didn't foreshadow any continued mastery of Congress; his relations with the Democratic House and, later, the Senate would deteriorate.

The main reason that the hundred days are an unreliable indicator of future performance is the same reason we watch them so closely: They constitute the period in which the public is just getting to know the new president, and in which the president is just getting to know his new job. New presidents tend to be clueless about governing. Even running a large state can't prepare them for the responsibilities, attention or demands to act quickly -- just as they need to find their footing. (FDR's term hardly defined his legacy; many of his greatest achievements came later.) Sizing up presidents based on their hundred days is like judging a rookie from his first cuts in spring training.