Speaking Politics term of the week: zinger

“Zinger” is one of many political words originating in the sports world. But by 1970, as political discourse became less civil and more confrontational, it turned into a catchy synonym for a barbed quip.

Steve Helber/AP
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures to the crowd during a rally in Roanoke, Va., Saturday, Sept. 24, 2016. Trump faces Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton in the first of three debates Monday.

Zinger: A supposedly spontaneous clever one-liner that has become a leading measuring stick – to some, the only measuring stick – for success in a debate.

“Zinger” is one of many political words originating in the sports world. The Online Etymology Dictionary says that in 1957, it was baseball slang for a pitcher’s fastball that caught unsuspecting hitters off guard. But by 1970, as political discourse became less civil and more confrontational, it turned into a catchy synonym for a barbed quip.

Former President George W. Bush, interviewed for a PBS special about his 2000 face-offs with Al Gore, credited Ronald Reagan with elevating the zinger’s importance. In one of his 1980 debates with President Jimmy Carter, Reagan drew laughter when he uttered the now-famous “There you go again” – a way of suggesting that Carter was regularly bending the truth.

“That became the measure of success to a certain extent … Unless there is the zinger or the kind of the cute line or whatever, the quotable moment, there’s no victor in a sense,” Bush said.

Since then, politicians have discovered that zingers are what voters respond to – much more than actual policies. And news sites have found again and again that they make for easy listicles.

The late Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D) is best remembered for telling Republican Dan Quayle in their 1988 vice-presidential debate, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Bloomberg News reported in 2012 that Sen. Bentsen had been fully prepared for his opponent to invoke JFK, having seen numerous transcripts of him making the comparison, and simply waited for the right moment to pounce. 

In this all-pervasive Twitter age, journalists are constantly on guard against zingers that seem overly scripted. During the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders pulled one out on Hillary Clinton when she talked about her plans for when she became president: “Secretary Clinton, you’re not in the White House yet.” Vox called it “weird, out-of-place,” while Mediaite agreed that it “backfired.”

And for all of the attention that they draw, political scientists say zingers – and indeed, debates as a whole – are not really essential in shifting opinions. 

“Scholars who have looked most carefully at the data have found that, when it comes to shifting enough votes to decide the outcome of the election, presidential debates have rarely, if ever, mattered,” George Washington University’s John Sides concluded in 2012.

Professor Sides added, “At best, debates provide a ‘nudge’ in very close elections like 1960, 1980 and 2000.” Given how close this year’s election appears to be, it’s hardly surprising that Clinton has been busily working on rehearsed attack lines – and that even Trump, known for just winging it, is doing some advance prep.

Chuck McCutcheon writes his “Speaking Politics” blog exclusively for Politics Voices.

Interested in decoding what candidates are saying? Chuck McCutcheon and David Mark’s latest book, “Doubletalk: The Language, Code, and Jargon of a Presidential Election,” is now out.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Speaking Politics term of the week: zinger
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today