"Yes, there are alternative and more nuanced approaches to evaluating a government’s performance during its first three months (or early days) that go beyond the symbolic 100-day benchmark. These methods consider the complexity and diversity of governance tasks while allowing for a more holistic assessment," said Semar to continue the topic. "The first alternative is alignment with Campaign Promises. This method evaluates whether the government has taken initial steps to deliver on its campaign promises, assessing specific actions, plans, or legislative proposals that align with their stated priorities. This method focuses on intent and alignment rather than immediate results, providing a fairer measure of early commitment.
In 'The Audacity to Win: How Obama Won and How We Can Beat the Partisan Divide Again' by David Plouffe (2009, Viking), the author examines the critical role of campaign promises in shaping governance and underscores the importance of delivering on those promises early in an administration. As Barack Obama's campaign manager during the 2008 election, Plouffe offers an insider's perspective on how campaign commitments influence public trust, set the tone for leadership, and impact political capital.
Plouffe highlights that campaign promises act as a social contract between candidates and voters. These commitments reflect the priorities and aspirations of the electorate. The Obama campaign focused on key promises such as economic recovery, healthcare reform, and addressing climate change. These resonated with voters during a time of economic crisis and political polarization. According to Plouffe, fulfilling these promises early validates the trust placed in a leader and strengthens their governing mandate.
Plouffe argues that the early days of an administration are critical for maintaining momentum. A president’s ability to quickly act on campaign promises reinforces their credibility and authority. For example, Obama prioritized passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) to address the economic downturn, fulfilling his promise to stabilize the economy. Delivering on early promises builds goodwill among supporters and provides leverage for future legislative battles. Failure to act, on the other hand, risks alienating the base and eroding political capital.
Plouffe emphasizes that the early fulfilment of campaign promises shapes the public's perception of a leader’s competence and integrity. This perception is particularly important in overcoming partisan divides and maintaining broad-based support. Obama's swift actions on promises like closing loopholes for special interests and enhancing government transparency aimed to build trust in a system many voters felt was broken.
Plouffe acknowledges the challenges of balancing campaign promises with the realities of governance. Not all promises can be delivered immediately due to political, economic, or logistical constraints. He discusses how Obama’s team carefully communicated the progress of major goals like healthcare reform, even when delays or compromises were inevitable. Plouffe emphasizes the importance of transparency in explaining such challenges to maintain voter confidence.
Early delivery on promises not only benefits an administration politically but also lays the groundwork for transformative change. Plouffe reflects on how early successes like the economic stimulus paved the way for more ambitious initiatives, such as the Affordable Care Act (2010). Conversely, failing to act early can lead to disillusionment and opposition mobilization, weakening an administration’s ability to govern effectively.
So, David Plouffe illustrates how campaign promises shape governance by providing a clear mandate, building trust, and establishing the priorities of an administration. He stresses the importance of delivering on these promises early to capitalize on political momentum and maintain public support. Plouffe's work serves as a guide for leaders to navigate the transition from campaigning to governing while staying true to the commitments made to voters.
The second alternative is the Policy Framework and Vision. It focuses on examining whether the government has articulated a coherent policy framework and long-term vision, analyzing key addresses, policy documents, and budgetary plans introduced during the first three months. It emphasizes the quality of planning over the quantity of actions, reflecting thoughtful governance.
In 'The President’s Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton' by Paul C. Light (1999, Johns Hopkins University Press), the author explores how U.S. presidents structure their policy priorities and emphasizes the critical importance of having a clear vision to guide their domestic agendas. Light provides a detailed analysis of the processes presidents use to formulate, prioritize, and implement policies while navigating the complexities of the political system.
Light explains that presidents typically enter office with a broad array of campaign promises. The challenge lies in narrowing these down into a feasible and coherent agenda. Effective agenda-setting requires distinguishing between urgent, high-impact policies and less pressing issues.
The political environment—such as the composition of Congress, public opinion, and economic conditions—plays a significant role in shaping a president's priorities. For instance: Presidents with strong congressional majorities may push for ambitious reforms. Conversely, presidents facing divided government may focus on achievable, bipartisan goals.
Light emphasizes that the first 100 days of a presidency are critical for setting the tone and structure of the agenda. Presidents often prioritize policies that capitalize on their electoral mandate and address pressing national issues.
A clear vision provides a framework for decision-making and helps the president maintain focus amid the competing demands of governance. Light argues that a well-defined vision enables the president to communicate priorities effectively to the public and Congress, and rally support from key stakeholders, including party members, interest groups, and the broader electorate. Without a clear vision, administrations risk being reactive rather than proactive. This can lead to fragmented policymaking and reduced effectiveness in achieving long-term goals.
Light discusses the tension between pursuing bold, transformative policies and ensuring that these policies are realistically achievable within the political system's constraints. Effective presidents strike a balance by setting ambitious goals that inspire and mobilize supporters and pairing these goals with practical strategies for implementation.
Light examines how presidents like Lyndon B. Johnson (with his Great Society programs) and Ronald Reagan (with his tax reforms) successfully aligned their vision with actionable priorities, while others faltered due to overreach or lack of clarity.
Light highlights the concept of 'policy windows,' moments when political and social conditions align to make certain policies viable. Presidents must be prepared to act swiftly when these opportunities arise. Structuring priorities also involves sequencing policies in a way that builds momentum. For example, presidents may start with policies that are easier to pass to establish credibility before tackling more contentious issues.
Light notes that presidents must juggle the expectations of various constituencies, from voters and party leaders to interest groups and international allies. This can complicate the prioritization process. Unforeseen events, such as economic crises or natural disasters (external disruptions), can derail even the most carefully structured agendas.
By analysing presidencies from John F. Kennedy to Bill Clinton, Light identifies recurring patterns in successful and unsuccessful agenda-setting, for example, Kennedy, struggled initially with a lack of legislative experience but eventually leveraged his vision to push forward initiatives like the space program. Johnson masterfully used his political skills and vision to pass transformative legislation, including the Civil Rights Act. Clinton faced challenges early in his presidency due to an overly ambitious and unfocused agenda, but later, he refocused on key priorities like welfare reform.
Paul C. Light’s 'The President’s Agenda' underscores the necessity of structuring policy priorities around a clear, actionable vision. A well-defined agenda helps presidents navigate the complexities of governance, build public and congressional support, and maximise their ability to effect meaningful change. The work provides valuable insights into the art and science of presidential leadership, illustrating how clarity of purpose can make or break a presidency.
The third alternative is Crisis Management, which focuses on evaluating how the government has responded to unforeseen crises during its early tenure. Review decisions, communication, and resource allocation in addressing immediate challenges such as natural disasters, economic disruptions, or security threats, this measure highlights adaptability and leadership under pressure.
In 'The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation' by Drew Westen (2007, PublicAffairs), the author explores how emotions significantly influence public perceptions of leadership, particularly during crises. Westen argues that a leader's ability to communicate effectively and resonate emotionally with the public during challenging times can define their legacy and determine political success.
Leaders are judged not only on their policies or decisions but also on their ability to connect emotionally with the public. In crises, people look for reassurance, strength, and a sense of direction. A leader who projects confidence and empathy can galvanize support, even when solutions are not immediately apparent.
Drew Westen's core thesis revolves around the idea that emotions, rather than rationality, are the primary drivers of political decision-making. Westen challenges the traditional assumption that voters make decisions based on logical analysis of policies, platforms, or facts. Instead, he asserts that political preferences are deeply rooted in emotional responses, shaped by personal values, identity, and the stories candidates tell.
Westen argues that political decisions are not the result of detached, rational deliberation. Instead, they emerge from the emotional brain, which processes feelings and subconscious biases. When faced with political choices, people often rely on their emotions to decide what feels right, rather than what is objectively logical. Voters may resonate more with a candidate’s tone, body language, or emotional appeal than with their policy details.
Stories matter more than statistics. Westen explains that humans are naturally drawn to narratives that evoke emotional connections, making storytelling a crucial tool in political persuasion. Successful politicians craft compelling narratives about who they are, what they believe, and how they will lead, rather than overwhelming voters with facts and figures. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats during the Great Depression conveyed hope and reassurance, making him a symbol of resilience even when the economic outlook was dire.
Westen emphasizes that political loyalty is built on emotional identification with a leader or party. Candidates who evoke strong emotions—such as hope, fear, or anger—are more likely to inspire commitment and voter turnout. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan, 'Yes We Can,' elicited a sense of optimism and collective empowerment, resonating emotionally with millions.
Politicians often use emotional triggers to frame issues in ways that align with voters' core beliefs and identities. Westen explains that successful campaigns target emotions like pride, fear, and empathy. Post-9/11 rhetoric often framed national security debates in terms of fear and safety, which shaped public opinion and policy priorities.
Westen highlights that voters’ decisions are often tied to their values and identity. Politicians who appeal to these elements can forge a deeper emotional connection. Ronald Reagan’s appeal to 'traditional American values' resonated with voters who identified with a nostalgic vision of America.
Westen critiques politicians who rely solely on policy details and logical arguments, arguing that such approaches fail to engage voters emotionally. Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign is cited as a case where the candidate’s focus on detailed policy discussions lacked emotional resonance, failing to connect with many voters on a personal level.
Westen explains that the way a leader frames a crisis shapes public perceptions. For example, using language that conveys control and hope, such as 'We will overcome this challenge,' is far more effective than defeatist or overly technical language. Leaders who fail to frame the crisis appropriately risk appearing detached or incompetent.
Early responses to crises are critical in establishing a leader’s credibility. Westen cites examples where leaders who acted decisively, even with imperfect solutions, earned public trust because they conveyed a sense of urgency and responsibility. Conversely, hesitation or poor communication can erode public confidence, as people perceive inaction as a lack of leadership.
Westen highlights the importance of creating a compelling narrative that instils resilience in the public. Leaders who frame the crisis as a temporary challenge that the nation can overcome together tend to be viewed favourably. This narrative not only motivates citizens but also aligns their emotional state with the leader’s vision.
Westen warns against leaders who focus solely on technical expertise or policy details without addressing the emotional needs of the public. Leaders who appear cold, distant, or overly calculated may struggle to connect, leading to public dissatisfaction, even if their decisions are sound. Westen also discusses the lasting impact of a leader’s actions during crises. Effective crisis management can cement a leader’s reputation as a strong and decisive figure. Failures in addressing public fears or concerns can lead to a long-term loss of trust, which may affect the leader’s ability to govern effectively."
