Giroux begins with an introduction into neoliberalism as “one of the most pervasive, if not, dangerous ideologies of the 21st century” (1). He describes it as “an incessant attack of democracy, public goods, the welfare state, and non-commodified values” (1), before detailing extensively how “every dimension of social life” (4) from market economics to the environment are at risk due to privatisation and deregulation. In particular he criticises the Bush administration’s promotion of neoliberal policies such as deregulation, tax reductions for the wealthy, and citizen surveillance as evidence of the government bearing no obligation for “the poor and dispossess or for the collective future of young people” (3). Although written in 2004, the detailed consequences of neoliberalism presented in the …show more content…
Although he is arguing against neoliberal capitalism, he fails to consider an opposing view in his critique, leaving the article one-sided. Instead, Giroux uses dramatic, emotive language to appeal to the pathos of readers. Through phrases such as “a cut-throat game of winner take all” (2), “unleashing the most brutalising forces of capitalism” (2), “despoiled” (1) and “grim” (1), Giroux attempts to cause alarm among his readers to truly reinforce the dangers of neoliberalism. As a result, the article comes across as democratic