Trump’s First 100 Days: As Advertised
Next Tuesday or Wednesday will be Donald Trump’s 100th day in office in his second term, depending on how you count the first day. You can expect a lot of news coverage, and most of that coverage will be biased. I’m going to give you a key you can listen for in that coverage that will tell you just how biased a given story is. But first, a little history. The significance of a president’s first 100 days was established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 to highlight his aggressive set of actions to turn around the bad economy he had inherited from his predecessor, Herbet Hoover. A quick start like FDR’s or Trump’s is traditionally possible only when one party has control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, sometimes referred to as a trifecta. Until the second Trump term, Presidents enjoying a trifecta produced legislation on a fast track, but Donald Trump has upended that idea by his extensive use of Executive Orders, while actually signing fewer bills into law than any recent President. This has prompted many on the left to claim a Constitutional crisis.
So now let’s take a look at a few mainstream media opinion pieces whose anti-Trump bias is so great that they seem anti-patriotic: First, the New York Times, under a headline that says, “Why Trump’s 100-Day Blitz May Lead to a Historic Bust” elaborates as follows:
[Quote] “It is safe to say that the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second presidency will be considered the most consequential of any in modern history. Since taking office, Mr. Trump has consolidated extraordinary power in the executive branch, dismantled large portions of the federal government, undone the military and economic alliances that were formed following World War II and torn up the policy consensus that has governed global trade for just as long.
But a consequential start does not in any way equate to long-term success. Mr. Trump’s approval ratings are already falling, and if past presidencies are any guide, the worst is yet to come.” [Close Quote]
Doesn’t that sound almost giddy with delight that Trump is failing? Nowhere does the Times acknowledge that Trump’s first 100 days are filled with actions that he had promised to take when a candidate. And that’s what I want to suggest that you use as a quick bias indicator: if a given story on Trump’s first 100 days fails to mention that most of his actions are exactly what he said he would do as a candidate, then that story is intrinsically biased. Of course, that doesn’t mean that a story that does cite his campaign promises is not biased, only that it isn’t as heavily biased as one that never acknowledges his pledges.
Now let’s look at the Washington Post, where Dana Millbank’s column is titled: “Trump’s 100-Day Blitz May Lead to a Historic Bust.” Here are some of Millbank’s claims, slightly
edited for length: [QUOTE] “By any reasonable measure, President Donald Trump’s first 100 days will be judged an epic failure.
He has been a legislative failure. He has signed only five bills into law…the worst performance at the start of a new president’s term in more than a century.
He has been an economic failure. On his watch, growth has slowed, consumer and business confidence has cratered, and markets have plunged
He has been a foreign-policy failure. He said he would end wars in Gaza and Ukraine. But fighting has resumed in Gaza after the demise of the ceasefire negotiated by his predecessor, and Russia continues to brutalize Ukraine.
He has been a failure in the eyes of friends, having launched a trade war against Canada, Mexico, Europe and Japan; enraged Canada with talk of annexation; threatened Greenland and Panama; and cleaved the NATO alliance.
He has been a failure in the eyes of foes, as an emboldened China menaces Taiwan, and punches back hard in the trade war…
He has been a constitutional failure…
He has been a failure in public opinion.” [UNQUOTE] And so on.
What’s missing? Not a word about his successes with stemming the tide of illegal immigration, one of the deciding issues of his Presidential campaign, and no acknowledgement that the tariffs are exactly what Trump promised as a means of addressing decades-long trade imbalances and unfairness.
So, as we all await a flood of critical coverage, my advice to the listeners of American Radio Journal is simple: listen for some concession that the President’s actions are fulfillments of the very pledges that got him elected, which is to say, what the American electorate said they wanted. That’s what a President is supposed to do.
