Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Woke Capital and the End of the Friedman Doctrine
Woke Capital and the End of the Friedman Doctrine
Jan 14, 2026 6:57 AM

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
Hugo Chavez and Jack London on why socialism kills
In an emotional story in the January 2020 issue of Reason, Jose Cordiero relays how “socialism killed my father” – through economic scarcity. His article highlights the life-and-death stakes of wealth creation. Cordiero writes that he was working in Silicon Valley when he got a call that his father had experienced kidney failure in Caracas. Yet even traveling to Bolivarian Venezuela became virtually impossible. The economic collapse ushered in by Hugo Chavez’s socialist policies dried up demand: Indeed, the number...
Video: David Hebert on how ice got to India
The 2019 Acton Lecture Series wrapped up last week Thursday with a lecture by David Hebert,assistant professor of economics and director of the Center for Markets, Ethics, and Entrepreneurship at Aquinas College. Hebert told the story of Frederick Tudor, a Boston entrepreneur who in the early 1800s set about finding a way to transport ice to Cuba, believing that given the opportunity, Cubans would pay handsomely for the resource. It wasn’t easy, but in the end he was right, and...
How reason and faith complement each other
Faith and reason are mutually reinforcing. When faith and reason bined, faith is kept from metastasizing into irrationality and reason is kept from ing overly materialistic. bination of faith and reason is the foundation of Western Civilization. In a new review of Samuel Gregg’s book, Reason, Faith, and the Struggle for Western Civilization, Gene Veith of Patrick Henry College notes that “[t]he scholastic theology of Roman Catholicism, grounded as it is in Aristotelian philosophy, does indeed integrate faith and reason,...
Trade war hits home: How tariffs disrupt American businesses
Despite the “America-first” claims of trade protectionists and economic nationalists, we continue to see the ill effects of the Trump administration’s recent wave of tariffs—particularly among American businesses, workers, and consumers. Alas, while such controls may serve to temporarily benefit a select number of businesses or industries, they are just as likely to distort and contort any number of other fruitful relationships and creative partnerships across the economic order—at home, abroad, and everywhere in between. In a recent article for...
An encyclical on China and the US?
Sen. Marco Rubio’s recent speech on capitalism and mon good, taking its point of departure in Rerum Novarum, has gotten a good bit of coverage. Yesterday he delivered remarks at the National Defense University and opened with these words: This morning I am honored to speak here at the National Defense University to discuss the defining geopolitical relationship of this century: the one between the United States and China. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a papal encyclical on this...
The Virtue of Liberalism
Today, Law & Liberty published the text of my lecture for the Philadelphia Society in October: “Why Economic Nationalism Fails.” The topic for the panel was “Conservatism and the Coming Economy.” Since I’m not a determinist and doubt my own powers of prediction, I focused on what political economy conservatives ought to support in the future, despite worrying trends in the present: Conservatives ought to reaffirm the good of economic liberty, both domestically and internationally. Free markets and free trade,...
Wilhelm Röpke on liberalism and Catholic social teaching
This week’s Acton Commentary, adapted from my preface to the newest Acton Institute publication The Humane Economist: A Wilhelm Röpke Reader, illustrates what makes Röpke such an interesting and vital economist: Röpke saw his project in holistic terms involving intersecting and interdependent spheres or orden that to be fully appreciated and understood scientifically must be examined in their economic, social, and moral dimensions. mitments to mainline economic analysis, the importance of social institutions, and the moral and religious framework of...
Brian Tierney, rest in peace
The world of medieval history suffered a great loss on November 30 with the death of Professor Brian Tierney. Widely recognized as a leading scholar of medieval Western Christianity and how church law and institutions affected the broader culture of Europe, Tierney wrote widely but also deeply on topics ranging from the origins of papal infallibility to how religion shaped the development of constitutionalism. Born in 1922, the formative experience for Tierney was, like for most of his generation, the...
Samuel Gregg: Charles de Gaulle could have prevented the Brexit debate
The integration of Europe in the postwar era continues to roil politics continent-wide, most notably taking center stage in this week’s UK general election. Yet Acton Institute Director of Research Samuel Gregg writes that Charles de Gaulle could have spared Europe this future. Gregg traces the history of European supranationalism from Immanuel Kant to Jacques Maritain’s Christian Democratic ideas in a new essay posted today at Law & Liberty. De Gaulle, although far from an isolationist, understood the reality of...
The road to London Bridge is paved with self-loathing
The day after Thanksgiving, the world saw a murderous terrorist prevented from maximizing his death toll by desperate people armed with nothing more than personal courage, a narwhal tusk, and a fire extinguisher. As I write at The Stream, unless the West jettisons its paralyzing doubt of itself and its historic faith, that scene threatens to e an “epoch-defining event.” Naively believing that all religions are alike, and that Western capitalism is uniquely exploitative, renders European culture incapable of understanding...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved