There’s a scenario described by neoliberal economists which goes like this: suppose you are walking through town when you encounter someone frantically trying to remove their arm with a blunt saw. What should you do? The ‘common sense’ moral response would be to attempt to stop them. The neoliberal answer is to provide them with a sharper saw.

Neoliberals believe that individuals know better than anyone else what is good for themselves. They believe that generally speaking, we have to accept people’s choices as rational expressions of self interest, and merely help them to achieve these ends.

It is, perhaps, this belief which is causing some to insist that the election of Donald Trump, and the referendum for Britain to leave the European Union, were not products of increasing inequality. Why? Because that issue did not feature highly on opinion polls of Trump and Brexit voters. Instead, issues like immigration and sovereignty were listed as important.

Neoliberals are inclined to take these people at their word. But in fact, this approach has always been an excuse for free market economics. Let the people decide for themselves by buying the products they desire. If people want to work in jobs with low safety standards, let them. If people want to purchase products with the potential to burst into flames, let them.

Only very recently are economists starting to wake up to the problems this causes. If they had actually respected other disciplines like sociology and psychology, they would never insist on such an approach. But that wouldn’t have let them believe the convenient fiction that the free market would solve everything.

People are, sadly, not inherently rational beings. They have to learn critical thinking. But that’s the light at the end of the tunnel. It can be taught. One of the biggest divides in both cases of Brexit and Trump was education level. It’s not just about the education itself, but the experiences that go along with studying. Being exposed to more kinds of people with broader opinions. Getting out into the wider world. I have plenty of criticism for modern educational systems but I can agree that more education is better than less.

As I have mentioned in previous articles, the initial, emotional response to an unpleasant situation is to point the finger at the most convenient target. In anger, we lash out at those we already dislike. Taking the time to reflect on it more, we might come to realise that anger was misplaced. But without the experience of having to actually sit down and structure an argument, we might never get past that stage. Especially if we are surrounded by people who agree with us, and already dislike those who disagree. And especially if the media we consume encourages us towards anger and hatred.

Sadly, neoliberal philosophy is deeply rooted in the left right now, even if they don’t realise it. On social issues in particular, it is vehemently insisted that we should take people at their word and not look too deeply at other explanations. This is not too surprising, given how many charitable and non-profit organisations which focus on ‘social justice’ seem to have ties to white businessmen deeply opposed to any form of market intervention.

On the one hand, this makes it difficult to actually help people who are struggling. We can’t get to the root of their problems if we don’t press on into deeper motivations. On the other hand, it closes us off to people who disagree with us. We again, take their word for it, rather than considering they might have real issues which have been misdirected.

It contributes to a perception of a world divided into innocents we should ‘listen’ to and deplorables we should ignore. Conveniently, the innocents we should listen to are represented by the non-profit organisations directed or financed by those rich white men.

Trump supporters are dismissed as angry authoritarian racist misogynists. This may well be true. But then we have to understand why they are those things and what we can do to change their minds. We can no longer safely ignore the deplorables, we have to find positive solutions to their complaints. But that doesn’t mean giving in to the right on social or economic issues, as so many seem to be suggesting.

It means we have to rebuild the left from the ground up, come up with new solutions and start actually bringing people together instead of furthering divisions. We have to reject the influence of organisations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Open Society Foundations and even Amnesty International, which have all been compromised and corrupted by financial interests.

We have to reject postmodernism and start building a picture of objective reality so that we can actually understand people instead of simply believing them.

We have to stop trying to tell people what they want to hear and instead figure out how to change their minds.

And as hard as it is right now, we have to stop hating our opponents and instead show them how to feel empathy, respect and trust through our own example.