When did the GOP jump the shark?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I would like there to be a viable alternative to the Democrats, but it's been nothing but five decades of frustration.

[King]

Iraq.  90s GOP could still govern properly.  Iraq was when they started giving up on their own principles.

Well, Medicare Part D actually.  Both were 2003.

[TNF]

1876

[angus]

I would like there to be a viable alternative to the Democrats, but it's been nothing but five decades of frustration.

that's one-hundred percent angus beef right there.

Hard to say when it started, though.  Five decades ago?  I guess if Nixon's strategy can be blamed for voters against their own interest (including support for exotic wars and permanent tax cuts to the rich), then you are right on.

[IceSpear]

Southern Strategy. When you make racists your main base of voters, it can only go downhill from there.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Er, should say "brinksmanship."

I think the Clinton impeachment started a downward spiral that continued until today.  But the Gingrich caucus elected in 1994 set the GOP on course for that iceberg.

The Southern Strategy theory of the rise of the GOP in the South has been challenged in academia lately.  Perhaps the Deep South flipped not because of racism, but because of the emergence of the Sun Belt - the new, affluent suburbia more in line with the GOP economically.  It explains why TN, AR, KY, and WV remained in the hands of the Dems for decades after the 1960s.  Read Matthew Lassiter's The Silent Majority:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Silent-Majority-Suburban-Twentieth-Century/dp/0691133891/

[Marnetmar]

1980s, 1994, 1998, 2008, 2009.

[pbrower2a]

Er, should say "brinksmanship."

I think the Clinton impeachment started a downward spiral that continued until today.  But the Gingrich caucus elected in 1994 set the GOP on course for that iceberg.

The Southern Strategy theory of the rise of the GOP in the South has been challenged in academia lately.  Perhaps the Deep South flipped not because of racism, but because of the emergence of the Sun Belt - the new, affluent suburbia more in line with the GOP economically.  It explains why TN, AR, KY, and WV remained in the hands of the Dems for decades after the 1960s.  Read Matthew Lassiter's The Silent Majority:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Silent-Majority-Suburban-Twentieth-Century/dp/0691133891/

Racism did not cause Republicans to win the arc of states from Louisiana to West Virginia in 2000 and 2004. Race is a near non-issue in Kentucky and West Virginia.

Republicans kissed up to Christian Protestant Fundamentalists in the Mountain South and won their vote with promises of school prayer, abortion bans, and Creationism to the detriment of winning voters elsewhere.

Outside the South, Democrats have been making inroads into the suburban vote. Suburbia used to have reliably high incomes and low costs of infrastructure; that is over outside the newest suburbs. Republicans may be the party of "Small Government" in theory, but in practice Suburbia (outside of Arizona, Georgia, and Texas now needs urban expenditures.  (Suburbs of Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Houston, and Atlanta are relatively new. Suburbs of most giant Northern and Western cities are beginning to show their age).   

[angus]

Yeah, brinksmanship is probably a succinct, one-word description of "Jumping the shark."

Jumping the shark, I assume, alludes to the desperate writing of a failing TV sitcom in an attempt to save itself.  Coming into the 1968 national elections, the Democrats controlled 62 Senate seats, 248 (56%) of the House seats, and the executive branch.  The Republicans had very little to lose, much like the writers of Happy Days in 1977 who decided to set some episodes in Hollywood (as opposed to Milwaukee).  And, much like Happy Days writer Gary Marshall who desperately wanted to show the executives of ABC Television that his characters still had story, the architects of the Southern Strategy under the guidance of Harry Dent were keen on improving ratings in a sensational way, invoking a plot device guaranteed to engage the electorate.  

I like the Southern Strategy and that's how I voted.  There are differences, however.  The Southern Strategy actually worked.  1964 was the last year that the Solid South was solid.  One by one, the southern states were picked off by the GOP, and eventually the GOP would briefly control both houses of the congress as well as the executive branch.  In fact, seven of the last 12 presidential contests were won by the Republicans.  On the other hand, Happy Days ratings continued to decline after 1977.  The program, although it ran for ten years, never received a single Emmy nomination and the network eventually put it out of its misery in 1984.  In that same Orwellian year, Ronald Reagan won a landslide re-election, bringing to fruition the Southern Strategy with his coalition of Reagan Democrats and Buckley Plutocrats.


Compare this:  

"It's Morning Again in America."

to this:  

Goodbye grey sky, hello blue.
There's nothing can hold me when I hold you.
Feels so right, it can't be wrong.
Rockin' and rollin' all week long.

These days are all
Share them with me.
These days are all
Happy and Free.
These Happy Days are yours and mine
These Happy Days are yours and mine, Happy Days.

[Franzl]

They've been an objectively terrible party since Reagan....but I wouldn't say they actually jumped the shark until the Tea Party.

You can disagree with something without considering it insane, but the problem with the modern GOP isn't that they just support bad policies...but that they dispute basic facts. You can't reason with a group of people that bases their entire worldview on things that are objectively untrue.

[Maxwell]

Iraq.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

During the 1988 campaign. I'm an eyewitness to the thuggery that ensued then.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

They've been an objectively terrible party since Reagan....but I wouldn't say they actually jumped the shark until the Tea Party.

This. It's probably more correct to state when the Tea Party actually got some legitimate pull, but good Franzl's overall sentiment is correct.

[angus]

I wouldn't say they actually jumped the shark until the Tea Party.

Can't agree.  This would imply that the Tea Party was underwritten internally by the GOP in an attempt to boost ratings.  I don't think that was ever the case.  The Tea Party, which isn't really a party but rather a loose confederation of more-or-less like-minded individuals, and which has nothing to do with tea, was a non-aligned movement which Fox's Juan Williams described as having formed "...from the ashes of Ron Paul's failed 2008 nomination bid."  The Paultards (or Paulites as we like to be called) had very little influence either inside or outside the GOP.  The analogy just doesn't work.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Goldwater started the trend, Reagan was the key turning point, Gingrich made it clear there would be no way back.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The Paultards (or Paulites as we like to be called) had very little influence either inside or outside the GOP.  The analogy just doesn't work.

The Paultards never had any influence inside the Tea Party either.  The TP might have grown out of the "ashes of Ron Paul's" failed bid, but it was very quickly hijacked by Palinites, Michelle Bachmann, and other loonies of various stripes having nothing whatsoever to do with Pauline ideology.  (The Brothers Koch don't seem to give a ****, either.)

Ron Paul may be the spiritual father of the Tea Party, but his movement left him.  Come to think of it, he's the literal father of Rand Paul, too.  Strange world...

The argument for the Tea Party as a Jump the Shark moment is that they have effectively made any body controlled by a GOP majority ungovernable.  The House of Representatives is broken.  There is some hope for a GOP-controlled Senate, since all TP primary challenges have thus far backfired spectacularly, and they can't hold the party by the cajones in that august body.  

Still, the TP has made it impossible for the GOP to advance.  It is mired.  It is broken.  It cannot stand as effective opposition when in minority, it cannot govern when in majority, and it can't adapt its platform to a changing electorate.

Now, keep in mind, there are huge numbers of voters out there who LOVE the Tea Party.  It's winning the GOP votes.  It's winning the GOP elections.  It's "boosting ratings."   But it's ultimately killing the viability of the party.

[DemPGH]

I found something called urban dictionary - it's really cool. I used it to look up "jump the shark," and it pretty much means what I thought it did: The point at which something reaches a low point or the point at which it "goes off the rails."

The point at which things pretty much became unsalvageable was probably the Tea Party, but I think the GOP "jumped the shark" with the Moral Majority deal and moreover, with the cult following of Reagan and his anti New Deal, anti-sociast verbiage in the 1980s. That's the modern neocon thing starting up. The southern strategy certainly paved the road to it all, but the '80s was when the GOP derailed, IMO.

[bballrox4717]

Voted 1994 and the Contract with America. Ideologically speaking probably 2010, but Gingrich was really the first to mainstream the gun to your head type politics the right wing uses today.

[Marokai Backbeat]

When they made Rush Limbaugh an "honorary member of Congress" in late 1994.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The Tea Party started out as a Ron-Pauline criticism of the Bush/Obama bailout.  But it very quickly became something else.  Look at the populist furor that made Joe the Plumber an instant celebrity in 2008 and you will find the true roots of the movement.  The vast sea of dumb was already there, waiting to be tapped.

[Mr. Illini]

It has been gradual. Southern strategy was big, as was Moral Majority, and then they really put the pedal to the floor with Iraq, Palin, and the Tea Party all in a decade.

[hopper]

Probably 2007(the immigration reform that didn't go through and made Hispanics mad at the Republicans) or 2011 when the Tea Party House Members came into Congress. A lot of mistakes the Republicans have made from my point of view since 2007 have damaged their brand. Shutting down the government late last year was stupid, I do think The Tea Party Wave was the most harmful.

People want to point to Gingrich in 1994-1995 yeah but at least he made deals with Clinton unlike something Boehner can't do with Obama and The GOP favorability numbers were still good over 50% in the 1990's mostly up until The Clinton Impeachment after that they bounced back over 50% again until Bush W. lost his favorability with Iraq, Harriett Myers Nomination to the Supreme Court, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The Southern Strategy is a non-factor The South was trending R since Eisenhower was President so eventually The South was gonna be Republican anyway although Carter swept The South except for Virginia in 1976.

I still voted 2013 Debt Ceiling because it epitomes everything everybody dislikes about the GOP.

[hopper]

I found something called urban dictionary - it's really cool. I used it to look up "jump the shark," and it pretty much means what I thought it did: The point at which something reaches a low point or the point at which it "goes off the rails."

The point at which things pretty much became unsalvageable was probably the Tea Party, but I think the GOP "jumped the shark" with the Moral Majority deal and moreover, with the cult following of Reagan and his anti New Deal, anti-sociast verbiage in the 1980s. That's the modern neocon thing starting up. The southern strategy certainly paved the road to it all, but the '80s was when the GOP derailed, IMO.

No the 80's the GOP was the premier party. Reagan didn't repeal the New Deal either so.....

[hopper]

It has been gradual. Southern strategy was big, as was Moral Majority, and then they really put the pedal to the floor with Iraq, Palin, and the Tea Party all in a decade.

I think they regret Iraq remember there were Democrats that voted for Iraq too. Making Palin a big star was a mistake she doesn't have the talent too cater a strong following to attract a lot of people to the Republican Brand like Reagan did. I know people like Mark Levin and Sean Hannity love Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin but its not the same country demographically when Levin and Hannity grew up in as teens. I know they want to think it is but they fail to realize its not the same country demographically as it was in the 1970's. This epitomes everything wrong about Hannity's views on the party: "I want the most conservative candidate to win" Bill Buckley: I want the most electable conservative to win. This is what is wrong with the GOP today. There you go in a nutshell to what the problem is in the party today. They forgot about the Buckley rule.

[AggregateDemand]

Definitely the TEA Party.

Republicans understood that deficits were driven by transferring funds away from the working classes and showering them on the non-working classes. It is obvious now, during a prolonged unemployment recession in which revenues have plummeted and unemployment expenses have soared. It was obvious to the Republicans of the Goldwater tribe and the neo-liberal technocrats (80s/90s) who understood that Great Society programs, which transferred money away from the middle class to the poor and elderly, would drive the deficits of this era.

TEA Party are clueless. They don't know that tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has only fluctuated +-2% since WWII. They think the deficit is driven exclusively by spending, not by the method of spending. They guard programs like Medicare, Social Security, and War on Drugs, though all of those programs are in desperate need of reform.

Prior to the formation of the TEA Party, Americans had an alternative to Democratic Keynesian hegemony. The alternative has been jeopardized in recent years by TEA Partiers who make know-nothing communist lefties look intelligent.