Stephen E. Herbits is an American businessman, former consultant to several Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Defense, executive vice president and corporate officer of the Seagram Company, advisor to the President's Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets, and secretary general of the World Jewish Congress. He was the youngest person to be appointed commissioner on the Gates Commission. Herbits' career has specialized in "fixing" institutions – governmental, business, and not-for-profit – with strategic planning and management consulting.
Competition has been, since its inception, essential to America’s success and global leadership and prominence. Competition has influenced our culture, policies, and economic landscape. It remains a necessary component of preserving our democracy. From the fundamental principles embedded in the structure of our Constitution that provides for the checks and balances between our separate branches of government to the very essence of the electoral process, competition is deeply intertwined with the American way of life.
Of course, in today’s political climate, politics comes to mind first; but our engagement in competition is historic, pervasive, deep, and essential.
Consider the teaching of sports in our schools. The U.S. adopted the British elite secondary school system and democratized it. In addition to instilling a spirit of competition, school sports teach the meaning of healthy regulated behavior, rules, and enforcement – helping establish and promulgate a responsible individual role in promoting competition in all sectors.
When it comes to ideas, science, research, creativity and intellectual achievement, our Constitution provides two critical motivations for competition: the First Amendment right to free speech and Article I, Section 8, Clause 8’s protection for copyrights and patents “to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Competition in our institutions of higher learning and not-for-profits for grants from the government and private sector spurs the exploration of valuable solutions to our future issues and a means of bettering ourselves. Even in the entertainment industry, reality TV shows are designed to make competition an entertaining spectacle, not to mention the plethora of choices of entertainment each of us has to enjoy and, from time to time, learn from others’ experiences.
Competition among nonprofit organizations allows them to organize, raise funds, attract workers and volunteers, and serve the public good. Even within religious institutions, competition for adherents fosters a diversity of approaches and permits individuals to disengage from rituals that no longer serve their needs.
Most importantly, though, competition in the political arena is paramount. Our government is the primary vehicle through which members of society engage one another on the most important battlefield – the rules and regulations we seek to live by and the support of programs, projects, and institutions to help and protect us.
Amending our Constitution to provide benefits to all our citizens has strengthened all of us and our opportunities, with much left to be done. One of the most notable examples of political competition is the battle through marches, dissent and voting for women’s suffrage, which granted women the right to participate in elections. This historic moment marked a pivotal turning point in American history.
Today, however, it is crucial to understand that some Supreme Court decisions, particularly those led by Chief Justice John Roberts, have raised concerns about the competition for votes – the most fundamental aspect of America’s success. A detailed report from the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center has demonstrated a continuous pattern to his decisions that have systematically shifted the power from voters deciding for whom we can vote to those elected officials already in place to decide who can vote
It can be argued that the Roberts court has resulted in unlimited dark money for elections, excessive gerrymandering, and the diminishment of the Voting Rights Act. This trend challenges the foundational principle of "one-man (now one-citizen), one vote." Addressing these structural inequities and stopping any further erosion of our voting rights is imperative now to ensuring that the spirit of competition remains ingrained in our electoral process and in our governmental system – executive, legislative, and legal branches.
When most people think of competition, they often conjure its place in the economic realm. Antitrust laws, dating back to the late 1880s, have been instrumental in preserving competition and preventing monopolies. Historically and still today, monopolies have wielded excessive power over consumers, affecting pricing and product quality, stifling innovation, and prioritizing our own interests over excessive greed and power.
In recent years, as The New York Times Editorial Board has pointed out, “concentration in various domestic industries has increased, granting more power to corporations to raise prices, squeeze suppliers, suppress wages, and influence policymakers since the 1980s.” Supply-side economics has now had forty years to prove its validity as the income disparities between the top 1% and the rest of Americans has grown.
Take, for instance, our healthcare sector, where the introduction of Medicare's ability to negotiate prices for pharmaceutical products has become a pressing issue. U.S. residents currently pay more for prescription medications than anyone else globally, with pharmaceutical companies dedicating significant resources to protect excessive profits and exorbitant executive compensation at the expense of public health. Hospital care competition itself is diminishing with super-investors acquiring hospitals across the nation. In Western North Carolina (where I live), county and city officials have taken multiple legal actions against the behemoth HCA Healthcare for cost-cutting measures that jeopardize patients' well-being while violating their agreements with local governments to continue to serve the public with agreed standards. These "extra" profits not only harm their patients but also burden taxpayers who must pursue governmental corrective actions.
Since the end of the 19th century, piece by piece, the Federal government established regulatory agencies as the "Fourth Branch" of government. Each was created to address and offer protection for complex and technical issues that are often too political and/or bureaucratic for the executive branch, too slow for the judicial branch, and too intricate for Congress. As the processes were created, regulation became the mediator among competing interests, including big businesses and consumers, and sometimes between big businesses themselves. Even China has replicated many of our protective agencies.
There is no doubt that these agencies are long overdue for updating processes, technology, and personnel to safeguard the citizens’ roles in informing those agencies. For instance, the tragic events involving the Boeing 737 Max aircraft serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of lax regulatory oversight when those responsible become lazy and delegate their own oversight to the manufacturer of the products or services they produce. Consulting company McKinsey-style examination and reform recommendations for every agency should take place.
Crucially, competition serves as a catalyst for stimulating, testing, assessing, and enhancing ideas and benefits while ensuring fairness. Fair competition thrives with the mediating role between the public and corporations and depends on their rules, regulations, and enforcement. Critics have questioned regulations since the “populism” of the 1980s, but they are indispensable for maintaining a level playing field where competition can thrive without harm or unfairness.
The mediating functions of regulatory agencies are the foundation of our regulatory system, designed to protect the public from uncompetitive behavior. This system requires strengthening, rather than its consistent and unrelenting demonization by big businesses and politicians who benefit most from the unlimited dark money flowing into the system thanks to decisions of Chief Justice John Roberts. His decisions have consistently demonstrated a commitment to the wealth theories of the Reagan era, and have chipped away at these fundamental protections, posing a threat to effective competition and the crucial mediating role of government agencies.
Competition remains a cornerstone of America's success, influencing various aspects of our society, from politics to economics, from science to culture to education. Recognizing the importance of competition and preserving its integrity through informed regulation and legal reform is essential to continue fostering the spirit of innovation, fairness, and individual engagement that has propelled America to greatness. America faces an existential danger if we ignore the necessity of managing competition. It is basic to every one of our lives in one way or the other.
Is it time for a national public commission to review the issues around competition and its preservation?
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.