This post was written by contributor Marcus Johnson through our new Daily Kos freelance program.

Donald Trump’s explosive rise to the presidency has forced many pundits and politicians to rethink how voters make political choices. One of the most popular explanations for Trump’s political success is the theory of economic anxiety.

As the theory goes, the lion’s share of Trump’s success in 2016 was due to Americans’ financial struggles, and the idea that these economic problems made whites more susceptible to blaming people of color for their problems. If Democrats had put more emphasis on programs such as Medicare for All or free college, then surely rural Trump voters wouldn’t have supported him. Of course, the economic anxiety theory is directly undercut by the political actions of blacks and Latinos, some of the country’s poorest demographics.

Hillary Clinton won among voters who made less than $50,000 in large part due to people of color. Nevertheless, proponents of the economic anxiety theory suggest that white Trump voters can be won over with appeals to social democracy and strengthened economic programs. This vision sounds attractive, but there is ample contemporary evidence from Europe that shows it isn’t feasible. Across Europe, xenophobic right-wing politics are ascendent, despite strong social safety nets that often include free health care. Given America’s political and cultural similarities to Europe, it is highly likely that even if the United States suddenly became a social democracy, racism would still exist and Republicans would still win elections throughout the country.

If the theory of economic anxiety is accurate, then countries with free college or government-paid health care should have few, if any, problems with racism. After all, since the citizens of these countries have their economic needs met and are without the fear of falling into outright destitution, there is no need for racism or xenophobia, right? But reality shows us that the opposite is often true. Nordic countries such as Denmark and Sweden have near-universal welfare states which provide citizens with a wide range of free benefits. These countries have also been facing rising anti-immigrant sentiment, which has manifested into racist anti-immigrant legislation.

Denmark in particular has passed a wave of laws targeting immigrants under the new “One Denmark Without Parallel Societies” initiative. In 2010, Denmark passed a law which classified low-income, immigrant communities as “ghettos.” The country has recently expanded on those policies, passing a new law concerning children living in “ghetto” communities. Under the new law, children living in these “ghettos” will be required to attend Danish-run youth facilities for at least 25 hours each week, where they will be taught about Danish culture and values. The compulsory culture training starts at age 1, and failure to comply with the law could lead to families losing their state welfare benefits.