Miller Hudson
Comprehending the grievances of anti-woke apostles on the right requires more than a little study of 20th century political theory. Daniel Bell was a popular Professor of Social Sciences at Harvard when he wrote, ‘The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism’ in 1976. His volume was selected as one of the hundred most influential books published during the last half of the 20thcentury. It’s neither a quick nor easy read. Suffice it to say Bell postulates capitalism’s biggest fans ignore the fact it rewards social change that horrify us all. Whatever the wisdom of the market, it is an amoral wisdom.
Historically, social conservatives have willingly exchanged their silence regarding plutocratic excess as long as government enforced an arbitrary regimen of social restrictions on personal behavior. This bargain has been unraveling for several decades. Conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular, have failed to recognize what Karl Marx so trenchantly observed: the imperatives of capitalist avarice show no respect for existing social arrangements. It has not been a devious fifth column of clever social justice warriors who have mysteriously suborned the complicity of America’s corporate managers in support of wokeness. This theory is suspect on its face, as there are no greater critics of corporate priorities than progressives.
It is the pursuit of reliable profits that is prompting the business changes troubling the American right — together with the growing affluence and consequent influence of the investor community. When Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his allies in Louisiana and other red states started pulling their pension portfolios from Black Rock because of its ESG (environmental, sustainable and governance) funds — their politics were more performative than substantive. Black Rock manages $8 trillion in assets, while the anti-woke withdrawals have yet to reach $3 billion — just .0004% of Black Rock’s holdings. Neither Larry Fink, Black Rock’s CEO, nor anyone on Wall Street has lost any sleep over their departure. Besides, they can and do collect a premium from investors in ESG funds.
As The Atlantic magazine recently noted, “many public employees and socially liberal professionals like the idea of investing in the green transition, while plenty of far-sighted financiers believe that heavy exposure to fossil fuels is unwise in the long term.” Critics point out that these ESG instruments rarely perform better than traditional mutual funds, yet their complaint misses the point. ESG funds don’t have to perform better, they merely have to do as well as competing and older, fossil fuel-burdened funds. They readily clear this hurdle. To the extent that oil and coal stocks have suffered losses, it isn’t because of radical influencers but because they are being whipped on price by natural gas and renewables.
Capitalism and its pursuit of profits is the real villain. At the same time DeSantis and his cronies insist investment decisions should be free from ESG considerations, they demand the right to override investors’ expressed preferences for purely political reasons. Asset managers aren’t their problem. They are merely merchants selling clients the investment products they want — just not the securities the right wishes them to want. Bell notes that, “..twentieth century capitalism wrought in some ways an even more startling sociological transformation — the shift from production to consumption as the fulcrum for capitalism.” All of which returns us to the current frictions growing from economic anxieties that afflict both the socially and politically woke and their anti-woke assailants.
This week’s New Yorker magazine features a profile by Sheelah Kolhatkar of the billionaire, pharmaceutical venture capitalist and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, author of “Anti-Woke, Inc.” Their names should remind us immigrant families arriving in America continue to succeed despite our inability to reach agreement on a humane system to greet them. A Harvard undergrad and then Yale Law School graduate, Ramaswamy has become a Fox News regular, where he ridicules the performative righteousness which he believes has replaced the political correctness crusades of the past few decades. Kolhatkar speculates, however, that “(a) well-established campaign guided by right-wing mega-donors is intent on sabotaging climate-change measures,” using anti-wokeness as their cudgel.
In contrast, Bill Ackman, founder of Pershing Square Capital observes, “my experience at least with the companies we know, is that being thoughtful with everything from packaging to environmental considerations is generally something that’s good for business.” Nonetheless, when the Business Roundtable issued a recommendation in 2019 recommending corporate responsibility should include operating ethically while delivering profits to shareholders, its statement was viewed as controversial — presumably by those who don’t need to worry about crashing to the bottom of America’s economic barrel.
American courts have awarded standing to corporations as “legal persons,” while economists, led by Milton Friedman, have argued companies’ sole obligation is to maximize returns to shareholders at the expense of all other stakeholders. The woke question, even resent, the justice of that theory.
Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.
