Reexamining the Myth and Reality of a President’s First 100 Days

The first 100 days of a presidential term have long been seen as a critical period for new leaders to implement significant policies. This tradition, however, is steeped more in myth than reality, according to experts who have analyzed its historical roots and current relevance.

Alasdair Roberts, a professor of public policy at UMass Amherst, explored this topic in a piece for Wilson Quarterly titled “The Hundred Days Mistake.” In an interview with The Show, Roberts discussed how the narrative of the 100 days originated with Franklin D. Roosevelt and why it continues to persist despite its questionable efficacy.

The Historical Origin

According to Roberts, the concept of the 100 days stems from Franklin Roosevelt’s early presidency in 1933, a period marked by economic turmoil. Roosevelt’s swift legislative actions, with over a dozen major bills passed, set a precedent that was later mythologized by historians like Arthur Schlesinger. This period was described by contemporary columnist Walter Lippmann as a time when the United States demonstrated effective governance.

Roosevelt versus Modern Presidents

Unlike Roosevelt, who had broad public support and minimal political opposition, modern presidents face a complex governmental landscape. Sam Dingman noted during the interview that current presidents rely more on executive orders due to the intricate nature of today’s federal government. Roberts pointed out that Roosevelt set up new systems, while today’s leaders deal with reforming existing structures.

The Myth of the 100 Days

The idea that presidents must achieve significant accomplishments in their first 100 days has become a powerful myth. Roberts explained that this narrative gained traction in the late 1950s and early 1960s, largely spurred by Democratic circles and Schlesinger’s writings. Despite its origins, the expectation has rarely been met by successors attempting to emulate Roosevelt’s accomplishments.

Challenges in the Modern Era

After World War II, the federal government expanded significantly, making the swift legislative action seen in Roosevelt’s time less feasible. Roberts remarked that postwar presidents have contributed to the increased complexity of the government, complicating efforts to enact rapid change.

Implications for Trump’s Presidency

Discussing President Trump’s approach, Roberts noted that while Trump campaigned on a message of national crisis, there was no consensus on the nature or existence of such a crisis. This lack of agreement contrasts sharply with Roosevelt’s era and complicates the effectiveness of Trump’s policy initiatives, many of which rely on discretionary powers that future presidents could easily reverse.

Roberts suggested that presidents would benefit from focusing on long-term goals rather than the arbitrary 100-day mark. The rush to meet this deadline often results in chaotic and short-lived policy changes, undermining the potential for a lasting legacy.

The 100-day benchmark remains a fixture in political narratives, yet its historical significance and practical application are continually questioned by scholars like Roberts, who advocate for a more measured approach.