After all, the “rookie,” like a new President, invariably has served a long apprenticeship before being drafted into the major leagues. Greenberg’s resort to a baseball analogy is particularly intriguing in this regard. And it’s a world in which, for better, or worse, what new leaders do in their early days has a disproportionate impact on all that follows. Unfortunately, however, new Presidents–and all new leaders–have to live in the world they inherit. Lambs would lie down with lions, for example, and goodness and niceness would prevail. In a better world a lot of things would be different. They would be given time to make mistakes and learn they could focus on long term vision and not have to worry so much about tactical maneuvering.

In a better world leaders wouldn’t be judged so much on their early accomplishments. (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.” 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. “New presidents tend to be clueless about governing. Greenberg’s argument actually boils down to “the first 100 days is really important, but in a better world it wouldn’t be.” The “folly” about which he writes is the placing of too much attention by the public and pundits on what Presidents do in their early days. But nowhere does he provide an iota of evidence to support the proposition that focusing on the first hundred days is “folly” for new Presidents. His piece describes some Presidents who did a lot in their first hundred days (FDR, Reagan), and others who worried a lot about it (Kennedy). In a feature article in the Wall Street Journal this weekend historian David Greenberg writes of “The Folly of the First Hundred Days”. This article is part of our in-depth look at President Obama’s first three months in office.

First hundred days fdr