So I looked at a video clip of that famous line, and I can honestly say I don’t get it. Carter was making some good points about healthcare, and Reagan dismisses them with “there you go again.”
Could someone explain the appeal behind that line to me? How is that supposed to be a rebuttal?
It’s not a rebuttal, it’s a dismissal. Dismissal is what you do when you don’t *have *a rebuttal.
Debates aren’t the sure wins everyone makes them out to be. After years of hearing about the Kennedy-Nixon debates, I finally got a chance to see them some time ago, and I thought Nixon didn’t come off all that badly. But to read accounts of the debates, you’d think that he looked as if a first grader with crayons did his makeup, and that he was thoroughly trounced.
FYI, the OP’s link goes to a 1984 Reagan-Mondale debate where Mondale had a rebuttal to the famous line coming.
Here’s the initial use during the Reagan-Carter debate in 1980. Listening to it, I was kind of shocked to hear Carter talking about the same issues that people are talking about now! Original ‘There You Go Again’ Moment
Americans remember short catch phrases far better than they remember long, drawn out policy debates. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t an actual rebuttal. It was dismissive and it made his opponent look stupid, so it worked.
Carter was known to be cerebral and not particularly charismatic; perhaps he was known to be long-winded and repeated the same points over and over. Dunno.
Lloyd Bentsen’s takedown of Dan Quaylein the 1988 vice-presidential debate is another good example of the power of the catch phrase. It can be argued that Quayle wasn’t really comparing himself to Jack Kennedy, only arguing he had a comparable number of years in Congressional experience. But Bentsen pounced on it and his reply became one of the most memorable phrases ever uttered in a debate.
1988 brought us “Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy” from Bentsen to Quayle. That was planned, Bentsen (or his staff) heard Quayle make that comparison in the past so he had that comeback ready.
Can I call you Joe? Good, because I practiced some zingers where I call you Joe.
Say it ain’t so.
Reagan’s line made more sense if you watch the whole thing. But that said, the REAL zinger of that debate was “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
The general consensus, I believe, is that Nixon won the debate on substance, but it ended up helping Kennedy because he was more telegenic. Obviously he was better looking, and then there was the thing about Kennedy’s dark suit looking better than Nixon’s gray one on B&W TV (and it really does, a lot).
I think the story was also that Kennedy, who Nixon had been painting as a novice without the depth to be President, held his own. The debates made Kennedy look like a credible President.
Nixon had a series of visual issues in the first debate. Looked pale and sickly, used Lazy-shave cream, that sort of thing. kennedy was fresh from the beach and looked tanned.
That’s not exactly a zinger, it’s a question that challengers almost always use. As it happens, in this case it was particularly effective because Carter was perceived as being muddling and ineffective.
It seems clear to me that Quayle was claiming he was as prepared as Kennedy, and I don’t think that’s true.
Political debates are more about personality than substance.
Reagan trounced Carter because Reagan was upbeat and confidant and Carter never did really come across as a confidant leader on TV. This has nothing to do with Carter’s abilities. Carter’s ‘malaise’ speach where he told us to just put on a sweater and suck up during the energy crisis did not sit well with a nation used to ever increasing prosperity. So Reagan was offering a counter-point of, call it hope and change.
And Carter lost because he could not sell the idea that growth and prosperity were at an end. The Iranians also rode Carter right into the ground. And then gave up the hostages to Reagan the moment he was elected. Why this seemed like a good idea to Iran is a whole 'nother book.
Nixon could not compete with the charisma of JFK. The merits of any political debate have almost nothing to do with who wins. The issues almost don’t matter.
That is my opinion. If someone has an example of a political debate won based upon the merits of the subject, rather than the personalities of the debaters, I’d be interested to hear of it.
Didn’t Reagan use that twice? I agree it was a most telling line. In 1980 almost every American had to say that he was NOT better off than he was four years ago.
By 1984, the answer was reversed and we were better off. Whether Reagan was so much responsible for this or he just rode an economic cycle is debatable, but the line worked for him, twice.
The most intelligent thing that W did or said was when he was interviewed before the Obama/McCain debate, and he said ‘I don’t think you can win an election because of a debate, but you sure can lose one.’
So true.
So was Regan’s dismissal of Carter pre-planned by his staff, or an off-the-cuff remark by The Gipper?
That’s all well and true, but in fact, Reagan trounced Carter because of that televised debate.
Remember, the race was absolutely neck and neck right up until that debate, which was just a few days before the election. If anything, Carter seemed to have a slight edge. For all the things you say were wrong with Carter, he was NOT losing. Reagan had his own weaknesses, and Carter looked like he mighjt win a second term. Reagan was ahead after the primaries but Carter caught up; contrary to what most people remember, Reagan’s campaign was not especially well executed. Carter’s campaign felt they were ahead going into that debate and knew they were dead within a day or two.
That debate completely changed the opinion polls. It was undoubtedly the most decisive election debate ever held in the USA.
Here is an interview between Jim Lehrer and Reagan that talks about the phrase.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/interviews/reagan.html
I doubt that the opinions of the public were swayed only by the last debate. You can’t change so many minds in a few days, particularly because not everyone even bothers to watch the debates.
There was media bias in those days too, although not nearly like it is today. The nightly news and newspapers were the main sources then, and they simply could not understand the celebriity/popularity of Reagan. How could an ex-actor with a line of bullshit be in line for president?
No, Carter lost because he tried to tell the American people do with less energy, less influence in the world, and drive 55 miles per hour. He had no balls. Americans like their leaders to have a pair, even if they are electing women. This condensed into a message that prosperity was over. That is what defeated Carter.
And from then on, until an award winning performance from ‘W’ for ‘worst president ever’, Carter held and defended the title.
“Things can get better”, trumps “Things are going to get worse, and you need to get used to it”.
And you can argue over the details and causes and say it had nothing to do with Reagan, but a decade of prosperity followed. Theory is nice but results matter.