## The Manipulation Machine: How Technology, Inequality, and Polarization Threaten American Democracy
## Introduction
The United States faces an unprecedented crisis. For eight consecutive years, the Economist Intelligence Unit has classified America as a “flawed democracy” rather than a full democracy, with the nation’s democratic institutions under sustained attack from multiple directions. The United States has been rated a “flawed democracy” by the Economist Intelligence Unit since 2016, reflecting declining trust in media and institutions, political gridlock, and sharp inequalities that threaten the foundation of democratic governance.
This crisis stems from a complex interplay of technological manipulation, economic inequality, and political polarization that has fundamentally altered how Americans receive information, form beliefs, and interact with one another. AI has opened a potential propaganda gold mine. Large language models like ChatGPT can learn to mimic human speech, while algorithmic systems designed to maximize engagement have created information environments that exploit human psychological vulnerabilities. The result is a population increasingly divided against itself, unable to agree on basic facts, and vulnerable to manipulation by those seeking to consolidate power and wealth.
Understanding this threat requires examining three interconnected phenomena: the technological infrastructure that enables large-scale manipulation, the economic forces that benefit from societal division, and the democratic breakdown that results when citizens lose faith in shared institutions and common ground.
## The Architecture of Digital Manipulation
**Algorithmic Recommendation Systems and Human Psychology**
The foundation of modern digital manipulation lies in recommendation algorithms designed to maximize user engagement through the exploitation of cognitive biases. These platforms are designed to be addictive by using intermittent rewards and trying to invoke negative emotional responses such as rage, anxiety and jealousy, which are known to prolong our engagement and deepen our attachment to our devices. These systems do not merely reflect user preferences; they actively shape them by leveraging evolutionary psychological mechanisms that evolved for environments radically different from today’s digital landscape.
Research demonstrates that social media algorithms systematically amplify content that generates strong emotional responses, particularly anger and moral outrage. A recent study suggests that people who are spreading political misinformation leverage moral and emotional information – for example, posts that provoke moral outrage – in order to get people to share it more. When algorithms amplify moral and emotional information, misinformation gets included in the amplification. This creates a feedback loop where the most divisive content receives the greatest reach, distorting public perception of social and political reality.
Chatbots sound human and help disaffected people feel connected, and they also tend to agree with whatever the person says. So they will reinforce existing prejudices.
The psychological mechanisms underlying this manipulation are well-documented. Humans evolved to trust information from known sources, make quick emotional decisions under stress, and believe repeated information regardless of its veracity. People’s daily interactions with online algorithms affect how they learn from others, with negative consequences including social misperceptions, conflict and the spread of misinformation. Modern algorithmic systems exploit these tendencies at unprecedented scale and speed.
**The Rise of AI-Powered Influence Operations**
The integration of artificial intelligence into information warfare represents a qualitative shift in the scale and sophistication of manipulation campaigns. Earlier this summer, investigators took down a sophisticated Russian “bot farm.” It was using AI to create fake accounts on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. Those accounts had individual biographies and profile pictures and could post content, comment on other posts, and build up followers.
Research by RAND Corporation reveals that state actors are systematically developing AI-powered propaganda capabilities. Li Bicheng never would have aroused the interest of RAND researchers in his early career. He was a Chinese academic, a computer scientist. He held patents for an online pornography blocker. Then, in 2019, he published a paper that should have raised alarms worldwide. In it, he sketched out a plan for using artificial intelligence to flood the internet with fake social media accounts. These accounts would appear authentic while systematically nudging public opinion in desired directions.
The implications extend beyond foreign interference. Political campaigns leveraged AI for tasks such as drafting campaign messages, generating subtitles, creating AI avatars and images and even deploying the first synthetic AI caller as a campaign volunteer. The 2024 election demonstrated how AI tools have become integrated into domestic political operations, blurring the line between legitimate campaigning and manipulation.
**Echo Chambers and Information Fragmentation**
Algorithmic systems have created what researchers term a “mismatch” between the goals of engagement-driven systems and healthy democratic discourse. One of the key outcomes of this mismatch in how people learn from each other through social media is that people start to form incorrect perceptions of their social world. For example, recent research suggests that when algorithms selectively amplify more extreme political views, people begin to think that their political in-group and out-group are more sharply divided than they really are.
This false polarization has measurable consequences for democratic functioning. Seven-in-ten adults say political viewpoints are definitely or probably being censored on social media sites due to the widespread use of algorithms to detect false information. A similar share (69%) says that news and information are definitely or probably being wrongly removed from the sites. Public trust in information systems has eroded to the point where majorities believe that content moderation itself represents bias rather than quality control.
The fragmentation of shared information environments undermines the shared basis of facts that democracy needs to work. When citizens cannot agree on basic facts, democratic compromise becomes impossible, and political competition transforms into existential conflict.
## Economic Inequality and the Concentration of Power
**The Scale of Economic Concentration**
The manipulation of public opinion occurs within a broader context of extreme economic inequality that has changed American power structures. In 1982, the “poorest” American listed on the first annual Forbes magazine list of America’s richest 400 had a net worth of $240 million in 2024 dollars. The average member of that first list had a net worth of $730 million. By 2024, the situation had changed dramatically. Rich Americans needed a net worth of at least $3.3 billion to enter the Forbes 400. The average member held a net worth of over $13 billion, nearly 18 times the 1982 average after adjusting for inflation.
This concentration of wealth creates political influence. America’s billionaires have increasingly used their exploding wealth to influence U.S. elections. According to Americans for Tax Fairness analysis, 100 billionaire families spent a staggering $2.6 billion, or 16.5 percent of total political contributions in 2024. In 2000, billionaire election spending came to just $18 million to influence the election, or 0.6 percent of total political contributions. The dramatic increase in billionaire political spending represents a shift toward control by the ultra-wealthy over democratic processes.
**Wealth Inequality and Social Stress**
The psychological impact of economic inequality creates conditions conducive to manipulation and authoritarian appeals. In the first quarter of 2024, 10% of workers in the United States owned 67% of its total wealth. In contrast, the lowest 50% of workers owned 2.5% of the wealth. This level of inequality generates widespread economic anxiety that manipulation campaigns can exploit.
Research documents how economic stress undermines critical thinking and increases susceptibility to emotional manipulation. From 1979 to 2024, average hourly compensation increased just 29.4 percent after adjusting for inflation. Worker productivity increased 80.9 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. In other words, productivity grew at a rate 2.7 times as fast as worker pay. The disconnect between economic productivity and worker compensation has created a population under chronic financial stress, making them more vulnerable to scapegoating and authoritarian solutions.
**Taking Control of Government Agencies**
The concentration of wealth has enabled taking control of the agencies designed to protect democratic processes. Those at the top of the income scale have increased their power to rig economic rules in their favor, further increasing income inequality. This creates a cycle where economic power becomes political power, which is then used to further concentrate economic resources.
The erosion of institutional safeguards has been documented across multiple domains. The federal government spends more than $300 billion on housing and retirement tax subsidies to support asset building, but families don’t benefit from them equally. More than 80 percent of these subsidies go to taxpayers in the top 40 percent of the income distribution, while the bottom 20 percent receive less than half of 1 percent of subsidies. For example, when the government pays inflated rates for private contracts, taxpayers cover the difference while companies profit. When public assets are sold to corporations below market value, Americans lose resources they helped build while corporations gain profitable opportunities. The 2025 administration has accelerated these patterns to an unprecedented scale. Government policy increasingly serves the interests of those with existing wealth rather than promoting broad-based opportunity.
## Political Polarization and Democratic Breakdown
**Understanding Political Division**
Contemporary American polarization represents changes in how people think and act that threaten democratic stability. Multiple studies found that when partisans were made aware that they shared policy beliefs across parties, their emotional division declined. However, these interventions have proven difficult to scale, and natural polarization processes continue to accelerate.
Research reveals that polarization manifests differently across different dimensions. Scholars who looked at self-identification found that conservatives were more likely to identify as Republicans and liberals as Democrats. This suggests that the parties were sorting by ideology much more than in past decades. This political sorting has transformed American political parties from broad coalitions into increasingly similar ideological camps.
The consequences extend beyond electoral politics into social and family relationships. 65% of Americans say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics. Families are cutting off contact entirely over political differences. People who care about each other find they can no longer communicate because they no longer trust each other’s basic understanding of reality.
**Democracy Under Threat Worldwide**
American polarization occurs within a global context of democratic decline that provides concerning precedents. Severe polarization correlates with serious democratic decline. Of the fifty-two instances where democracies reached dangerous levels of polarization, twenty-six—fully half of the cases—experienced a downgrading of their democratic rating. The United States represents the only advanced Western democracy to experience such sustained polarization, placing it in uncharted territory.
Recent examples show how this process unfolds. In Turkey, polarization between secular and religious blocs helped President Erdoğan consolidate power, erode judicial independence, and muzzle the press. In Venezuela, divisions between supporters and opponents of Hugo Chávez enabled erosion of checks and balances, media crackdowns, and eventual authoritarian control. In Poland and Hungary, sharp polarization allowed ruling parties to undermine courts, limit press freedoms, and rewrite electoral rules while framing critics as enemies.
Global data reveals that democratic institutions are under pressure worldwide. The quality of global democracies hit an all-time low in 2024, and the U.S. continues to be seen as a “flawed democracy,” according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s annual Global Democracy Index report. More than one-third of the world’s population now lives under authoritarian rule, representing a reversal of post-Cold War democratic expansion.
**The Threat of Political Violence**
Polarization has created conditions where political violence becomes normalized as a legitimate tactic. The shift is from shocking exceptions to recurring features. What once would have been a red line is now part of the political environment, explained away as “passion,” “free speech,” or “just politics.”
School board members, election workers, and local officials now regularly receive death threats. Instead of being universally condemned, these threats are often brushed off as “heated politics.” Armed groups showed up outside ballot drop boxes in 2022 Arizona elections and were treated by some as “observers,” normalizing intimidation. Since 2020, local officials debating mask mandates, library books, or curriculum have been swarmed with threats and sometimes physical altercations, driving resignations nationwide.
The pattern extends to higher levels of government. In Michigan in 2020, armed protesters entered the state capitol during COVID restrictions. Rather than being treated as a red line, some lawmakers downplayed it or praised the protesters’ “energy.” Many members of Congress now receive constant death threats, so much so that lawmakers describe it as “part of the job.” When Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer in his home in 2022, the attack was immediately politicized and mocked by some public figures instead of universally condemned.
The normalization of political violence represents a fundamental threat to democratic competition. When political opponents are viewed as existential threats rather than legitimate competitors, the incentives for peaceful resolution of conflicts disappear. This creates what scholars term “dangerous polarization” that makes democratic breakdown more likely.
## Conclusion: The Stakes for American Democracy
The convergence of technological manipulation, economic inequality, and political polarization represents a significant challenge to American democratic institutions. The United States is the only advanced Western democracy to have faced such intense polarization for such an extended period, placing it in what researchers term “uncharted territory.” As authoritarianism gains ground globally and democratic institutions continue to weaken, the window for institutional reform appears to be narrowing.
However, the crisis also creates opportunities for systematic change. Historical analysis demonstrates that democracies can recover from periods of institutional stress through sustained reform efforts. The diversity of international cases shows multiple pathways for addressing polarization: some nations have resolved deep divisions through democratic processes, while others have used rule of law mechanisms to check polarizing leaders who concentrate power.
The choices made in the coming years will likely determine whether the United States maintains its democratic character or follows the trajectory of nations sliding toward authoritarianism. Research suggests that if governance fails to improve and deliver tangible benefits for citizens, disaffection and political polarization typically intensify.
Successful democratic renewal appears to require coordinated intervention across multiple domains: technological systems designed to support rather than undermine democratic discourse; economic policies that reduce inequality and restore broad-based opportunity; political institutions reformed to reduce polarization incentives; and enhanced civic education that develops citizens’ capacity to navigate complex information environments.
Without such interventions, current trends suggest continued polarization, institutional breakdown, and potential erosion of democratic governance. The manipulation systems documented in this analysis will likely grow more sophisticated over time, while economic inequalities that fuel social resentment may worsen without policy intervention. Political polarization that prevents collective problem-solving appears likely to intensify until democratic competition becomes increasingly difficult.
The research indicates that the United States faces a choice between democratic renewal and continued institutional decline. The outcome will depend on whether Americans can overcome the documented forces that divide them and develop effective approaches to address the genuine challenges facing their society.
—
## References
**[Measuring the Income Gap from 1975 to 2023](https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-2.html)** (Working Paper WR-A516-2): This February 2025 paper estimates that approximately **$79 trillion** in cumulative income was redirected from the bottom 90% of workers to the top 1% between 1975 and 2023.
Alexander, N. (2024). [Algorithmic manipulation: How social media platforms exploit student vulnerabilities.](https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2024/11/08/algorithmic-manipulation-how-social-media-platforms-exploit-student-vulnerabilities/) *Yale Daily News*.
Americans for Tax Fairness. (2024). [Billionaire election spending analysis](https://americansfortaxfairness.org/).
Beauchamp-Mustafaga, N., & Marcellino, W. (2024). [Social media manipulation in the era of AI](https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2024/social-media-manipulation-in-the-era-of-ai.html). *RAND Corporation*.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2024). [A guide to statistics on historical trends in income inequality](https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality).
Diamond, L. (2024). [America votes 2024, part 2: Limits of forecasting, declining trust, and combating polarization](https://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/news/america-votes-2024-part-2-limits-forecasting-declining-trust-and-combating-polarization). *Freeman Spogli Institute*.
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2024). [Democracy index 2024](https://www.axios.com/2025/02/27/global-democracy-score-record-low-report).
Haile, Y. A. (2024). [The theoretical wedding of computational propaganda and information operations: Unraveling digital manipulation in conflict zones](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14614448241302319). *SAGE Journals*.
Inequality.org. (2017). [Income inequality](https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/).
Inequality.org. (2017). [Wealth inequality](https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/).
Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024). [Social drivers and algorithmic mechanisms on digital media](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916231185057). *SAGE Journals*.
Navot, E. (2024). [Big data allows researchers to analyze income inequality gap](https://news.ufl.edu/2024/11/income-inequality/). *University of Florida News*.
Pew Research Center. (2020). [Trends in U.S. income and wealth inequality](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/).
Pew Research Center. (2022). [Mixed views about social media companies using algorithms to find misinformation](https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/mixed-views-about-social-media-companies-using-algorithms-to-find-false-information/).
Pew Research Center. (2025). [Economic inequality seen as major challenge around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/01/09/economic-inequality-seen-as-major-challenge-around-the-world/).
Polarization Research Lab. (2024). [Path to 2024: Did the 2024 election shift Americans’ attitudes about democracy?](https://polarizationresearchlab.org/2024/12/12/report-path-to-2024-how-the-2024-election-shaped-americans-attitudes-about-democracy/)
Press, B., & McCoy, J. (2022). [What happens when democracies become perniciously polarized?](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190) *Carnegie Endowment for International Peace*.
SAIS Review. (2025). [Social media, disinformation, and AI: Transforming the landscape of the 2024 U.S. presidential political campaigns](https://saisreview.sais.jhu.edu/social-media-disinformation-and-ai-transforming-the-landscape-of-the-2024-u-s-presidential-political-campaigns/).
Scientific American. (2024). [Social media algorithms warp how people learn from each other](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/social-media-algorithms-warp-how-people-learn-from-each-other/).
St. Louis Federal Reserve. (2025). [The state of U.S. household wealth](https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2024/feb/us-wealth-inequality-widespread-gains-gaps-remain).
The Fulcrum. (2024). [United States remains a ‘flawed democracy’ in annual study](https://thefulcrum.us/ethics-leadership/democracy-index). This study also warns that the rating is likely to drop as a result of the United States political situation since January 2025.
Urban Institute. (2023). [Nine charts about wealth inequality in America](https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/).
Warshaw, C. (2023). [Polarization, democracy, and political violence in the United States: What the research says](https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/09/05/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-united-states-what-research-says-pub-90457). *Carnegie Endowment for International Peace*.
Related Substack post: https://lfitzhugh.substack.com/p/the-propaganda-machine-has-hijacked
Comments are closed.