Whose interests do political parties prioritize the most?

[Hello My Son]

Given that we live in an era of hyperpartisanship and party loyalty that many critics of either or both major parties would define as "extreme," it can be argued that we no longer engage in actions such as holding our preferred party accountable, constructively criticizing our party/politicians, or pressuring representatives to change their views to be in line with their constituency. With the bulk of criticism and pressure against either party coming from the opposition rather than from within its own ranks, there does not appear to be much internal motivation for change. Given these factors, whose interests are being prioritized by both or each party?

Given the sheer number of possible options that cannot all be listed, I'll focus primarily on listing generic entities/issues, but please feel free to elaborate and explain if you lump the parties together or perceive each party to be prioritizing different interests (which I assume will commonly be the case).

Multiple choices are of course allowed.

 

[j brown's body]

One party prioritizes its leader’s interest, no matter what it is.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

DONORS

political parties prioritize the needs of their donors

 

[Hello My Son]

DONORS

political parties prioritize the needs of their donors

I intended that to be part of the lobbyist category. Thank you for mentioning this specifically--I'll update it.

Edit: Actually, it doesn't appear to allow me to edit the list itself, but please consider "Donors" to be part of the "lobbyist" category unless anyone feels that there is a better way to describe their categorization.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Other. Both major political parties (demorats and republicants) agree to the continuous expansion of federal government powers and expense, resulting in continuous annual federal deficit stimulus?) spending. While their stated policy positions may vary, both are beholden to the donor class (mainly via their lobbyists) and make all sorts of excuses to ‘justify’ the overall result of having a huge (and growing) national debt.

 

[Hello My Son]

Other. Both major political parties (demorats and republicants) agree to the continuous expansion of federal government powers and expense, resulting in continuous annual federal deficit stimulus?) spending. While their stated policy positions may vary, both are beholden to the donor class (mainly via their lobbyists) and make all sorts of excuses to ‘justify’ the overall result of having a huge (and growing) national debt.

Very fair points. It seems a few people already think big donor/dark money is the true driving force for each political party's agenda.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Very fair points. It seems a few people already think big donor/dark money is the true driving force for each political party's agenda.

Imagine having “free” federal deficit (stimulus?) funds being constantly pumped into a capitalist economy being popular.

 

[coyote505]

What is clear is that Neither party is prioritizing the interests of regular folk.

 

[j brown's body]

What can we say of a party that has tethered itself to someone who got away with trying to steal an election and is supporting his efforts to eliminate the independence of democratic institutions?

 

[ttwtt78640]

What is clear is that Neither party is prioritizing the interests of regular folk.

Yet ‘our’ congress critters enjoy re-election rates of over 90%.

 

[Mycroft]

Other.

Democrats want power;

Republicans want money.

Democrats use money to get power;

Republicans use power to get money.

The ideology of the democrats drives their donor activity.

The donor activity drives the republican ideology.

 

[Hello My Son]

Other.

Democrats want power;

Republicans want money.

Democrats use money to get power;

Republicans use power to get money.

The ideology of the democrats drives their donor activity.

The donor activity drives the republican ideology.

Interesting and succinct take. Thank you for commenting!

 

[quip]

Given that we live in an era of hyperpartisanship and party loyalty that many critics of either or both major parties would define as "extreme," it can be argued that we no longer engage in actions such as holding our preferred party accountable, constructively criticizing our party/politicians, or pressuring representatives to change their views to be in line with their constituency. With the bulk of criticism and pressure against either party coming from the opposition rather than from within its own ranks, there does not appear to be much internal motivation for change. Given these factors, whose interests are being prioritized by both or each party?

Given the sheer number of possible options that cannot all be listed, I'll focus primarily on listing generic entities/issues, but please feel free to elaborate and explain if you lump the parties together or perceive each party to be prioritizing different interests (which I assume will commonly be the case).

Multiple choices are of course allowed.

The first two options are partners in crime.

 

[CLAX1911]

One party prioritizes its leader’s interest, no matter what it is.

No both parties prioritize the doners.

 

[What if...?]

Both work for their donors. But the left’s donors tend to rely more on American paychecks for their profits than the right’s do.

For instance, a car insurance company would like for people to be able to afford a car.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The answer to this question is normally different than it is right this moment.

Because right this moment it's all about one person and that's the president.

 

[CLAX1911]

Both work for their donors. But the left’s donors tend to rely more on American paychecks for their profits than the right’s do.

I don't think there's a difference between the parties regarding this

For instance, a car insurance company would like for people to be able to afford a car.

Bill Gates and Jeff bezos are some of the biggest contributors so no.

 

[CLAX1911]

The first two options are partners in crime.

I don't think you get very far supporting yourself in politics campaigns are expensive.

 

[quip]

I don't think you get very far supporting yourself in politics campaigns are expensive.

Think of it as an investment.

 

[CLAX1911]

Think of it as an investment.

Investments pay off. If that's how it worked nobody would lose you'd get your dividends.