Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Woke Capital and the End of the Friedman Doctrine
Woke Capital and the End of the Friedman Doctrine
Jan 18, 2026 8:18 PM

A new book outlines what happens when businesses forsake their true mission—to serve the customer—and instead seek to transform the culture. Is there any hope that business will get back to, well, business?

Read More…

The woke agenda in corporate America is increasingly tyrannical and must be stopped to preserve free markets and the American way of life, so writes Stephen R. Soukup in the newly released second edition of The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business. Soukup dives into the battle for political and cultural control of the boardroom, currently captured by the left. This book could be viewed as red meat for Republicans, fueling the current pop culture of political tribalism—the red cover and clever amalgamation of the Disney, Amazon, and Apple logos signal the primary villains before you turn a page.

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI); Environment, Sustainability, Governance (ESG); stakeholder capitalism; woke capital; climate change; and Marxism fill Soukup’s pages. The name-dropping starts early, including BlackRock’s Larry Fink, Michael Bloomberg, and Marc Benioff of Salesforce, and reads like a burst of Trump bombast. Yet this red meat has teeth. It’s not just the tyranny of “woke capital” but the politicization of business, big and small, that has damnable consequences for economic growth and the American way of life.

mences with a nuanced backstory often missing from these discussions. He calls it “The long march through the institutions.” Scientism, the idea that economies can be planned and made in the image of the elites, captured larger and larger swathes of academia throughout the 20th century, beginning with the arrival of the Frankfurt School at Columbia University in 1935, where Marxism found sanctuary within the American academy.

Initially insulated from Marxism and critical theory, business schools finally became their victims and began marching in lockstep toward a new world order, and a new business plan was crafted: The shareholder is greedy, if not downright evil, and the fundamental role of business in society is to reform it. Corporations are encouraged to reshape culture in the image of enlightened elites who presume to care about various stakeholders. The methodical advance of new progressivism thus unleashes the modern administrative state with its tentacles reaching into corporate boardrooms.

Stakeholder prominence was originally addressed in Milton Friedman’s powerful 1970 New York Times op-ed, wherein he explained the shareholder theory of capitalism. This would e known as “The Friedman Doctrine,” which argues that the corporate executive is an employee of the business owners and has a direct responsibility to them. The purview of the business executive is to serve its owners by serving customers well. This is the social responsibility of a business, which does not preclude other social responsibilities the business executive may assume outside the corporation. The Friedman doctrine effectively destroys the shareholder-stakeholder false dichotomy.

Soukup reinforces Friedman’s point by invoking Calvin Coolidge: “The chief business of America is business.” In market economies, firms must battle each other (not the customer!) to determine what people need and want and then provide it. Consumers get more than just stuff. Markets erode historical patterns of discrimination and exclusion, as Nobel laureate Gary Becker demonstrated in 1971. Maybe markets were “woke” before woke was weaponized. Yet entrepreneurship is nevertheless a risk-laden and daunting venture in a market economy characterized by free-flowing prices, well-protected private property rights, the rule of law, and profit and losses. Firms are here today and potentially gone tomorrow.

Predictably, firms seek government refuge from the vicissitudes of market volatility. And the new “stakeholder capitalism” advanced through ESG and DEI initiatives is a smokescreen for such refuge and political privilege.

The right-left power struggle to influence and control corporate boards reads like a live-action David and Goliath battle. Soukup lists the few players on the right, including Justin Danhof, a one-man show at the National Center for Public Policy Research; the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC); the Capital Research Center (CRC); and center-left billionaire Warren Buffet, who remains outspoken on the dangers of the politicization of corporate America.

Soukup then opens fire on the villains of woke capital, and the list is long. Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, is dictating pervasive DEI and ESG goals with the government’s approval. Obama’s disgraced attorney general Eric Holder is the new diversity guru. The Sustainability Accountability Standards Board (SASB), an activist group, establishes itself as the final authority on what constitutes a “sustainable” business. Soukup insists this hyper-regulation is tyrannical. These “extra-regulatory standards created to circumvent the U.S. government” free them from the pesky democratic process. It allows Larry Fink to control corporate standards without answering to the American government or the American people. This is corporatism on steroids.

The author then indicts Disney, Apple, and Amazon for capitulating to the ESG and DEI narratives. On its own, there is nothing wrong with this. Businesses should be able to experiment freely with different philosophies and charitable interests, just as they can experiment with different production methods. Then they should succeed or fail on their merit. For example, Hobby Lobby is outspoken in supporting conservative Christian causes, which means it loses potential customers, but it’s a risk they are willing to take. Let the market pick the winners and losers in corporate governance. As Soukup points out, the dynamics of publicly panies change panies do, the political pressures they face, and their ownership structure. For example, if Chick-fil-A were publicly traded, it would have opened on Sundays long ago, forcing them to operate against its values.

The modern business environment differs because these are not one-off experiments but a concentrated agenda to control businesses and grow the administrative state. The new tolerance is intolerance toward anyone who questions the narrative. And “failure” at achieving diversity goals, for example, will not be tolerated. The irony that should not be lost here is that this amounts to old white men calling the shots and creating new rules to ensure that white men no longer call the shots and create the rules. It’s never been about diversity or the environment per se; it’s always been about controlling the levers of power.

How did we get here? Soukup offers several explanations. First is the altered nature of pany ownership structures, like proxy advisory services, which are authorized to vote on behalf of their clients. Soukup argues that the same regulatory requirements do not constrain them as they do asset managers, and they tend not to be as worried about their mendations reflecting the interests of their clients—a huge principal-agent problem. Moreover, large asset managers have a wide reach. Tim Cook can influence the governance of Apple, but Larry Fink can steer social-governance behavior across many industries panies. Finally, outside activist groups in the 1980s began to seize opportunities to use capital markets to advance political and social agendas “too important to leave to the democratic process.” For example, the Human Rights Campaign created the “Corporate Equity Index” to panies on diversity quotas, and corporations have scrambled ever since ply lest they be viewed as bigoted.

There is some reason for hope not mentioned in the book, however. The left’s stranglehold on corporate decision-making can go too far; ask Anheuser Busch, now down $27 billion. Consumer values still matter, and markets have not been entirely co-opted by leftist corporatism. Soukup’s descriptions of the problem of corporatism are amplified by modern culture wars and increasing political tribalism.

Soukup begins the book suggesting that the government must push back against what he calls “woke” business. This is not necessarily desirable because it essentially asks the fox to guard the henhouse. There is too much government involvement in the corporate agenda already, not too little. And he never specifies how this pushback could be plished without giving the government even more power to intervene in the private sector, pounding at least one problem that needs fixing.

This is why the last three sentences of the book might be the best: “Depoliticize business. Depoliticize markets. Back to Neutral.” Maybe the best thing the government can do is to stop what it is now doing. Disentangle itself from large corporations, end favoritism, stop subsidizing the DEI and ESG agendas, and allow businesses to serve customers well.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Unemployment as economic-spiritual indicator — May 2018 report
Series Note: Jobs are one of the most important aspects of a morally functioning economy. They help us serve the needs of our neighbors and lead to human flourishing both for the individual and munities. Conversely, not having a job can adversely affect spiritual and psychological well-being of individuals and families. Because unemployment is a spiritual problem, Christians in America need to understand and be aware of the monthly data on employment. Each month highlight the latest numbers we need...
6 facts about the brewing U.S.-EU trade war
Late last week, President Donald Trump announced he would impose steel and aluminum tariffs against U.S. allies across the transatlantic sphere. Here are the facts you need to know: President Trump applied a 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum against the European Union, as well as NAFTA trade partners Canada and Mexico. The tariffs, originally targeting China in March on the grounds of national security, contained an exemption for U.S. allies. Last Thursday, Trump...
Why tariffs and protectionism makes Americans poorer
Earlier today President Trump imposed tariffs on imported steel (25 percent) and aluminum (10 percent) from the European Union, Canada and Mexico. Not surprisingly, the tariffs triggered immediate retaliation from U.S. allies against American businesses and farmers. “This is protectionism, pure and simple,” said Jean-Claude Junker, president of the European Commission.Junker is correct. The tariffs are are a form of protectionism that is frequently proposed by populists and Democrats. But what is wrong with protectionism? The short answer is that...
Want to ‘change the world’? Embrace the glories of economic scale
As the latest crop of college graduates enters the workforce, many ing fully loaded with grandiose plans for “social transformation,” “giving back to munities,” and “making a difference.” Unfortunately, such phrases have e slippery slogans based on a cultural imagination that is far too narrow in its basic assumptions. Whether spurred along by the idealism of college professors, the hurrahs of mencement speeches, or the hedonistic calls of cultural tropes (“follow your passion!”), today’s youth are often clouded with a...
Winners of 2018 Mini-Grants on Free Market Economics
The Acton Institute Mini-Grants on Free Market Economics program accepts proposals from faculty members at colleges, seminaries, and universities in the United States and Canada in order to promote the scholarship and teaching of market economics. This program allows for collaboration between faculty from different universities, as well as help future leaders to emerge, strengthen, and expand the existing network of scholars within economics. Entrants may submit proposals in two broad categories: course development and faculty scholarship. Here is plete...
France’s 200 roads to serfdom
One of Europe’s most robust welfare states may be proving that government intervention and true social solidarity are inimical forces. Many economic interventionists on both sides of the Atlantic cite the Catholic social teaching of “solidarity” – or, at least, their own conception of it – to justify far-reaching government policies of wealth confiscation and redistribution. The British philosopher Julian Baggini wrote in The Guardian that “Tax Freedom Day” should be celebrated as “Social Solidarity Day.” But heavy-handed government policy...
6 Quotes: Free Expression, Religious Freedom, and the Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling
Earlier today the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the most important religious freedom case of the year. Despite being a win for the bakery and its owner, Jack Phillips, the future implications of this case for religious liberty are rather narrow in scope. “In this case the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward in the respects noted above,” said the Court. “However later cases raising these...
How eschatology transforms our economic action
As the church continues to navigate the challenges of the modern economy, we’ve seen a renewed recognition of the “earthiness” of our God-given callings—embracing the mundane and material aspects of our daily work and rejecting the “sacred-secular divide.” Yet in our earnest efforts to e more “earthly minded” for heavenly good, we face new temptations toward a different sort of lopsidedness. In an article for FULLER Studio, Vincent Bacote reminds us of this risk, recognizing the need for balance and...
6 Quotes: G.K. Chesterton on freedom and virtue
Yesterday was the 144th birthday of G.K. Chesterton. In his honor, here are six quotes by the great British writer on freedom and virtue. On defending virtue: “The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.” On modern freedom: “Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.” On courage:...
Physical capital and diminishing returns
Note: This is post #81 in a weekly video series on basic economics. How did Germany and Japan achieve record economic growth following World War II? A primary reason is physical capital. In this video by Marginal Revolution University, Alex Tabarrok explains two specific concepts that deal with physical capital and the success of Germany and Japan. The first is the iron logic of diminishing returns which states that, for each new input of capital, there is less and less...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved