How did Reagan win the debate against Carter?

September 21, 2012

Writer

The media was hammering him as stupid and old and he didn’t do a very good job in the first debate with President Carter. So how was Reagan able to turn things around? Glenn explained on radio this morning.

"I want to tell you the story of Ronald Reagan and how he won the debate against Jimmy Carter. You know, we were living in a time very similar. People didn't think that Ronald Reagan could handle it and the media was hammering Ronald Reagan. Now the media was also hammering Jimmy Carter. You know, they had ‑‑ that's why Ted Koppel, we even went on the air because Ted Koppel started "Nightline" and it was just ‑‑ it was just about the hostage crisis. That's all it was. But Jimmy Carter was winning. And Jimmy Carter was very good at the first debate and at that first debate he made Ronald Reagan look like he didn't know what he was talking about. Because Jimmy Carter was a bureaucrat. Ronald Reagan was an idea guy, which is much more in line with the American people, the ideas, not the policy wonk stuff," Glenn explained.

"This is again one of the differences between the election then and the election now because Barack Obama is definitely not a wonk. He can't even tell you that the debt is at $16 trillion, not 10. He is just about an idea, and his idea happens to be out of step with the American people. His idea is about redistribution of wealth and socialism and that the buck stops with you. But he is so good at being the big picture idea guy that Americans just kind of go along with it. Romney needs to inspire. He needs to inspire and he needs to quickly explain things to the American people. He needs to find ways to explain how he's going to create jobs. That shouldn't be too hard, but you're going to need a good storyteller, a good ‑‑ somebody who knows how to package things," Glenn said.

"Back in 1980 that man was Roger Ailes. Roger Ailes was a guy who was at the time a political guy. I mean, he went in and he was the one who helped Nixon in the 1960s. He was a producer on the Mike Douglas Show and he was I think the youngest producer and that was the first talk show and there was a guy sitting in the makeup chair and he was putting on makeup, they were putting the makeup on and he was talking about how much he hated television and television was just this passing fad. And Mr. Ailes was standing behind him and I don't even know how young he was. He was young at this point. And he was standing behind him and he said, I'm sorry, Mr. Vice President, but television will either make you or break you. And if you ever want to have a future in politics again, you're going to need to learn how to do television."

"Well, about a year or so later, Nixon decided he was going to run for president and he called Roger Ailes and said, 'Will you help me? You teach me how to do television.' And that's what he did. And he became a political consultant. Now comes to 1980 and Reagan is losing and he lost the first debate because Carter could talk about all of these policies. He could talk about, you know, the farm subsidy bills and everything else. And Reagan was like, I don't even know what he's talking about. I don't know all these subsidies and these programs. And Roger came in to him and said, Mr. President ‑‑ or Mr. Reagan, you have ‑‑ you have good news and bad news. The bad news is you just got your butt kicked. But here's the good news. You can win. You can win. Reagan said how. He said, I don't mean this to be a slam. This is why the American people like you and this is why you're going to be so effective. You really, everything that you talk about really can all be summed up in about five things, and I don't remember what those five things were but they were basically, you know, communism is evil and we have to have a strong military. The government and its overregulation is the problem, and the solution is the people."

"So he gave him those five things, whatever they were, and he said all you have to do is just talk about those five things because no matter what is brought up, you can answer that question with one of those five things and those are the things the American people want to hear and what they like about you. And he said, you can articulate, you don't need anybody to help you on that. You already know those. And so he role played with Reagan. And Reagan said farm subsidy bill. He said, I believe government is the problem. I believe in the farmers and the American people. And if we would just get out of the way of the American people, the farmers will be fine because the farm he is know how to plant. The farmers know how to do it. The government doesn't. How do they know in Washington? I imagine that meeting ended with smiles all around and the next debate, 'Well, there he goes again.' And Reagan crushed him and that was the end."

"The reason I bring up this story is Pat and I were talking the other day about what Romney needs to do in the election and I'm like, "I don't think he can politically consult or would politically consult anybody anymore, but I wish he would." If there was a way that you could just say, 'Hey, magic fairy dust, resign for about four hours from Fox and then resign up, you know, later that afternoon, consult.' Or if Romney would just read the stories of what this man said. Roger Ailes is one of the smartest guys. He knows the American people. He knows the American people unlike I think anybody else does. He knows them and he can boil things down and I don't know who that guy is now that can do that. That's what Roger used to do, still does at Fox."

"Who is that guy? Who can boil them down for the American people and teach that to Romney? Because Romney, he's got to appeal to the regular person. I mean, how many people do you talk to and you're like, I don't know, I don't know if there's a difference. There is a huge difference."

"So what does that tell you? That tells you the American people are not really paying attention. They don't know who this guy is. 'I don't know, there's no difference.' They don't know who Barack Obama is because if they think Barack Obama is just like their beer buddy that they have beers with, they couldn't be more wrong. I contend most Americans, if you got to know the real Barack Obama and you were in his inner circle and you heard his friends and how they talk and what they say about America and the military and everything else, I contend the vast majority of Americans would despise Barack Obama as a friend."

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep