The Real First 100 Days

President Donald Trump delivers his Joint address to Congress, Tuesday, March 4, 2025, in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok
Some have pointed out that this “100 days” of the second term of President Donald Trump is not the first 100 days because of the 100 days he had in his first term. Fair observation, given how time and numbers work. But a case can be made that this is the first 100 days where he’s been treated like an actual president.
Democrats are understandably resistant to all things presented by the new administration. Republicans have yet to find a gracious way to force their policies onto the opposition. Truth be told, Republicans don’t seem to be slowing down on their victory tour anytime soon. Some are already sick of winning, as Trump famously said in 2016.
This has led to more than one media controversy but has not yet resulted in mass casualties. We are, for now, in the realm of feelings and words and opinions. Even the policies aren’t codified in any law beyond the requirements of winning one presidential election. Undoing broad executive orders imposed by any administration is something the plurality of the country actually wants.
The latest media row with the new administration was the bombastic Joint Session of Congress in which the president was protested by Democratic members of Congress. To the point where they had to be removed by the Sergeant at Arms, sounds serious. So serious that the wise among us like the Managing Editor of this fine publication, Andrew Donaldson, spoke up.
https://x.com/four4thefire/status/1897326446252855746?s=46
Andrew provides a simple solution to stop media controversy all together by reverting to traditions that made them less controversial. The simple Dad Solution. Take the whole thing away to have peace, quiet and something resembling functionality. Any familiarity with fatherhood demonstrates, more often than not, it’s used because it’s reliable. But this particular moment seems to be more nuanced.
It seems like it’s a matter of perspective. The most relatable perspective is that of a guest invited by the President and other government officials. It should always be about the guest in our modern tradition. And this is where the leftists in congress showed themselves to be petty and small. No matter the guest, they refused to celebrate or acknowledge their fellow citizens out of partisan spite. Ugliness abounded.
After all, it’s only a media product because it’s televised. In context and on site, it’s largely about what the President wants, but more effort is put into the acknowledgments of individuals. We see this in the constant rising and applauding for each honored guest and their accomplishments or survived struggle. Is it partisan? Absolutely, but that’s the reward for winning the election. Having the tradition of the President speaking to congress was standard. Spitefully refusing to acknowledge or rise for any person, including some the left claim to fight for, was a choice.
And not a noble one. Refusing to applaud a child granted his wish or a young man being accepted into West Point was low-class by the left. Not everything is about the sour grapes after an election loss. Americans should expect more from leaders, on both sides, to recognize the moments they’re in and apply some course correction as needed.
Perhaps Andrew is right, as he often is. Maybe the country should revert back to the tradition of just a letter to congress like Thomas Jefferson pioneered. But after having Joe Biden’s condition and the severity of it obscured from the American public for so long, it makes the media event appear as more of a necessary evil.
To keep the tradition and correct course requires not being partisan every waking moment. This is likely naive and too hopeful, but there are worse things to be. The point is, our traditions are what we make them. Tradition is a choice. Choose wisely.
Unfortunately, the whole “this meeting could have been an email” criticism has evolved into partisan usefulness.
I saw it given against Biden’s speeches by Biden’s opposition during Biden’s term (with the notable exception of 2024 where Biden’s opposition was saying stuff like “I want to see if he’ll wander off halfway through the speech!”).
I want to say that the criticism had the most bite when the speeches were the most boring. If it’s a boring speech, why not replace it with an email?
But when the speech is, effectively, a pro wrestling promo? Hell, those are *RATINGS GOLD*! Trump’s speech’s numbers were up 14% from Biden last year! (Though he didn’t hit the numbers he achieved during his first term… his lowest rated speech in 2020 got better numbers.)
What’s the solution? Well… I have no idea. If the wrestling promos give the content that mumbling through a list of bullet points doesn’t, we’re going to get wrestling promos.Report
My fired federal colleagues would beg to differ on the no consequences statement.
As would farmers who have lost USDA support AND contracts to sell food to USAID.
But sure – tell us again how all this is just a media circus signifying nothing.Report