The incomparable sense of urgency muted serious political opposition, creating a situation that was practically unprecedented in presidential politics. With his first-ever fireside chat, an executive fiat declaring a bank holiday, and the quick passage of banking reform, FDR ended and reversed the run on the banks that had been threatening to make a dire economic situation worse. Not only had Herbert Hoover’s laissez-faire ideology failed to pull the nation out of the Depression, but in the winter of 1932–33, banks were failing at an alarming rate. That year, Franklin Roosevelt took office amid unprecedented crisis. It was after 1933 that the term entered into widespread American usage and became a benchmark for presidential achievement.
The “hundred days” term originally came from Napoleon's time, when he escaped his exile, rallied the French army, and briefly retook power until he was defeated at Waterloo. Technically, all of this took 111 days to unfold, but the period came to be called the Hundred Days: a period of dramatic accomplishment and transformation. In 1815, the exiled conqueror escaped from his redoubt on the island of Elba, rallied the French army, and briefly restored his rule until his defeat at Waterloo. It originally came not from Roosevelt’s time but from Napoleon’s ( les cent jours).
To be sure, the hundred days mythology will die hard. In particular, successful presidencies-even those with rocky launches-have begun with the passage of a major economic plan that can both set the ideological tenor of an administration and, if it spurs recovery and growth, create space both politically and fiscally to achieve other goals in subsequent years.
Instead, they should prioritize key, substantial issues. Given all this, it is time for presidents and their aides to stop trying to amass a list of accomplishments that can be rolled out for the news media at the start of May. “…it’s a myth that presidents succeed through good public relations.” A reputation for facility with communication follows from a record of achievement, not the other way around. On the contrary, those presidents whom we recall as skilled communicators are typically remembered that way only because they actually accomplished things. Above all, it’s a myth that presidents can succeed through good public relations. All modern presidents go through ups and downs, periods of positive and negative coverage, none of which matter much in the long run. Historically, that arbitrary benchmark has rarely correlated with the subsequent success or failure of a president’s time in office. At least since FDR, moreover, presidents have intently followed the media’s short-term judgments about success and failure-leading to overweening attention to favorability ratings, the tenor of insider opinion, and whether the president had “a good week.” Moved by such concerns, presidents and their staffs have bought into the hundred days mythology, working hard to ensure positive headlines when the deadline comes around.īut presidents and their staffs would be wise to pay a bit less attention to the hype about the first hundred days.
A rookie president, entering office with as much goodwill as he (or she) is ever likely to enjoy, has room to maneuver and opportunities to act that seldom last long. That early record is even said to foretell the overall fortunes of an entire presidency. Since the landmark opening sessions of Franklin Roosevelt’s first term, presidents and the news media have touted the first hundred days of a new administration as a precious window during which ambitious goals might be achieved or forsaken.
0 kommentar(er)
