250How's It Going?America's 250-year progress report · federal data, same yardstick
The pattern that crosses every president

Did it all break at once?

Money in politics. Wealth pulling to the top. Deaths of despair, overdose and suicide. Trust in democracy. Each one is measured by a different institution, on its own. Put them on one timeline and they move together, and they keep moving the same direction no matter which party holds the White House.

The window below spans four presidents, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. Two Republicans, two Democrats. We are not telling you who caused it. We are showing you what happened, when, and from whose records. Every number is sourced. You decide what it means.

Measured

Six trends, one window

Each line is scaled to its own range (0 is that measure's low, 100 its high) so six different units (dollars, percentages, a count) can sit on one chart. It shows timing and shape, not size. Hover any year for the real numbers.

Social-media adoption Measured ↗Influencer-marketing industry (global) Measured ↗Top 1% share of stocks Measured ↗Newspaper-industry revenue Measured ↗Pro-corporate / ultra-wealthy laws (cumulative) Editorial ↗Partisan animosity Perception ↗
How to read it: The shaded band is the convergence window, roughly 2008–2012, where most of these lines bend at once. Several things land in it: the 2008 financial crash, the Citizens United ruling (2010), and the rise of algorithmic feeds (~2011–12). We're not claiming any one of them set off the rest, the honest read is that they overlap, and the curves move together through the window. As newspaper revenue falls, the others climb, the watchdog shrinks while money, attention, and division concentrate. Dotted markers flag moments along the way, Occupy Wall Street (2011), the 2016 vote, COVID, and Dobbs. A few honest caveats: social-media figures before 2012 are estimates and Pew changed methods in 2023; partisan animosity is polled in select years only, so it's shown as points, not a line, and note the 2016 reading was taken at the campaign peak while 2017 is a calmer annual average, which is exactly how a feelings measure can “drop” without anything real changing. The pro-corporate-law count is editorial, a constructed tally (every inclusion is arguable), shown dashed. The cleaner measured companion to that line: ITEP counts $10.6T in tax cuts since 2000, about two-thirds flowing to the richest fifth.

The simple comparison: before vs. now

One column, twelve independent measures. Every single one moved against ordinary people, and it did so straight through administrations of both parties. That is the whole point: this isn't a story about a party. It's a story about a system.

Measure
Before
After
Outside election spending
$143M (2008)
$4.5B (2024)31x increase
Billionaire share of political spending
0.6% (2000)
16.5% (2024)27x increase
Partisan approval gap
58 pts (W Bush)
89 pts (Trump II)+31 points
Top 1% wealth share
~27%
31%+4 percentage points (~$5 trillion)
Middle class wealth share
37% (1990)
26% (2025)-11 percentage points
Democracy classification
Full democracy (8.22)
Flawed democracy (7.85)Downgraded
World Happiness rank
11th
23rdDropped 12 places
Corruption Perceptions
73
64Lowest ever recorded
Trust in government
~30%
22%-8 points
Deaths of despair
37.5 per 100k
72 per 100kNearly doubled
V-Dem checks & balances
Strong (0.85)
100-year lowHistoric decline
Men under 35 lonely
Not measured at scale
25% (10 pts above OECD)Epidemic levels

Color shows direction for ordinary people, not party. Here every measure happens to point the same way: against them.

Before = 2008 (or earliest comparable year). After = 2024. Sources: OpenSecrets, Federal Reserve, Gallup, V-Dem, EIU, Transparency International, CDC, World Happiness Report.

How it unfolded

2008
The baseline
Outside election spending: $143 million (2008 election cycle). Top 1% held ~27% of national wealth. Democracy scored 8.22 (Full democracy).
2010
Citizens United v. FEC decided (January 2010)
Corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on elections. Super PACs created. Outside spending more than doubled: $143M (2008) → $310M (2010).
2012
The algorithms arrive
Social media stops showing posts chronologically and starts showing what generates the most engagement — which means the most emotional, divisive content rises to the top.
2016
Full convergence
Unlimited money + algorithmic amplification + micro-targeting + Russian interference + cable news outrage model + declining trust = a system optimized for division.
2020
Acceleration
Pandemic isolation → more screen time → more algorithmic exposure → more polarization → January 6 insurrection. Billionaire wealth grew US billionaire wealth grew $2.07 trillion (70.3%) from March 2020 to October 2021 while 22 million Americans lost their jobs.
2024
Where we are now
Outside spending: $4.5 billion (31x increase from 2008 in 16 years). Top 1% wealth: 31.0%. Deaths of despair: 72 per 100k (more than doubled since 2008). 68% (bipartisan) of Americans say democracy has declined, across both parties.

Why it feeds itself

Each element reinforces the others in a measurable cycle. Each link below is measured on its own, the timing is what suggests they add up to one connected loop.

  1. Citizens United enables unlimited political spending (measured: $143M → $4.5B)
  2. Wealthy donors fund campaigns and Super PACs (measured: 100 billionaire families now provide 16.5% of all contributions)
  3. Elected officials pass policies favoring donors (measured: corporate tax rate 35% → 21%, wealth share concentrating)
  4. Social media algorithms amplify divisive content for profit (measured: Facebook's own research confirms this)
  5. Polarization increases, trust collapses (measured: partisan gap 58 → 89 pts, trust 30% → 22%)
  6. Polarized electorate is easier to manipulate with simple narratives (measured: manosphere exposure, red pill pipeline)
  7. Lonely, economically struggling young men are recruited into extremist ecosystems (measured: male loneliness, deaths of despair, young men swinging right)
  8. Democratic institutions weaken (measured: V-Dem, EIU, IG firings, DOJ gutted)
  9. Weakened institutions can't regulate the money or the platforms (measured: no new campaign finance law, no social media regulation)
  10. Cycle repeats with more money, more division, less accountability

What this proves, and what it doesn't

What we can prove
  • Every metric listed above is independently measured by a credible institution
  • All of them moved in the same direction during the same window (2010-2024)
  • Citizens United preceded the spending explosion
  • Algorithmic social media preceded the polarization acceleration
  • Facebook's own internal research confirms their algorithms amplified divisive content
  • Cambridge Analytica demonstrably micro-targeted voters using harvested data
  • Wealth concentrated while middle class share shrank under policies funded by that wealth
  • Democratic institutions measurably weakened by every independent measurement system
What we can't
  • That Citizens United CAUSED all of this (other factors: social media, cable news, geographic sorting, 2008 financial crisis, cultural shifts all happened simultaneously)
  • That any single factor is the primary driver (it's a system, not a single cause)
  • That the correlation between these trends equals causation (it's the strongest correlation in modern American political data, but correlation ≠ causation)
  • That reversing Citizens United would fix it (the platforms and polarization have their own momentum now)
Correlation, Not Proven Cause
See how this plays out in money & politics →
How we measure this & our sources →
← Back to the progress report