There is an increasingly frequent argument presented by the american
right, that latin american immigrants disproportionatly vote democrat,
and that there is a conspiracy by the democratic party to increase
it's votes by bringing in more immigrants.

One would be tempted to bring in Freud to this discussion, for it is
clear, that what these republicans are implying, through their
accusations, is that the republican party should do the same, deny
asylum, on the basis on what applicants are most likely to vote in
state elections.

This reminds me of a common theme in western societies. It is the
anticipation that democratication leads to the implementation of
specific policy, such as gender equality, a kind of determinism, or
warped Hegelian dialectic, that inevitably leads to more
liberalisation.

Jens Stoltenberg, famously, promoted a version of this,
methaphorically through Norwegian fables. He said that trolls trive in
darkness, and that when exposed, they turn to stone and break apart in
the sunlight, meaning that when right wing opinions are challenged in
public discourse they get discredited and dismissed.

This idea has been the (failing) global policy of the western world
for decades, that democratisation of the far reacing corners of the
world, will turn them into us. Democracy in non-western countries will
inevitably lead to gender equality and homosexual rights.

Like the american rights accusation against the democrats with regards
to "voter displacement", western leaders become supporters of
democracy, not by principle, not based on the ethical dimension of
ways of ruling a country, but their anticipation of conrete policy
outcomes of democratication.

Here lies the biggest and ugliest problem of western societies today,
that once they anticipate the outcome of democratic processes,
anything that violates that outcome, such as the election of Donald
Trump, must be undemocratic.

- lindus