I have always been both fascinated and perplexed by the polar differences in how liberals and conservatives view the concept of competition. Growing up, I was always taught that being competitive meant you had to be as good as or better than your competition. If you were better, you win, if not, you lose. But it was always based on my own ability that determined how competitive I was at whatever task I was performing. This concept applied throughout my life, as I made my way through college, work and then running my own businesses. If I offer great services at a price the market deems reasonable, I gain customers and my business succeeds; if not, I have no customers and my business fails. I assumed that everyone viewed this simple, common sense concept the same way I did.

It seems, however, that liberals and conservatives define being competitive in very different ways. To a conservative, being competitive takes on the exact meaning as defined in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary: “the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms” (emphases added). As consumers, we are always looking for the highest quality product at the lowest possible cost, in other words, seeking the most favorable terms. We all benefit greatly from companies competing with each other, pushing one another to produce better products while lowering prices. This constant downward pressure, caused by competition, allows most Americans to enjoy items considered as luxuries in many countries around the world. Therefore, conservatives constantly push to keep the government out of the “free market” so as to allow the most benefit to the most people.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think that being competitive means something completely different. They believe that if a company or product is not as good, efficient, or capable as another, then that creates an unfair advantage. Therefore, those who are better should be penalized in such a way as to hinder their capabilities and destroy their natural advantage in order to create a “more fair” playing field. You can see this throughout liberal politics, from defending expensive labor unions that are destroying American manufacturing, to energy policy, where you can hear Obama say things like “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” (emphasis added). A promise that would certainly hurt every American, especially the poor. If liberals can’t compete in a free market, they believe the government should step in and help them out by forcing artificial costs on the more competitive company, driving prices up and making it appear as if the less efficient company is actually competitive.

To visualize how ridiculous this concept of competition actually is, lets apply it to the NBA. We will take a journey back in time to the late 90’s. A time that was very painful for me, a time when my Utah Jazz lost two years in a row in the NBA finals to the Chicago Bulls. Michael Jordan was named MVP both years. Now imagine, if you will, other teams complaining about the unfair advantage that Michael Jordan created with his superior talent (believe me, I was constantly frustrated with last second shots that shattered our championship dreams). Clearly, the Bulls record throughout the 90s proves the existence of this “unfair advantage”. In order for the NBA to be “more competitive”, a liberal would create a policy that says that Michael Jordan has to play with his right hand tied to his body in order to make things “more fair”. The end result would appear to be effective. Other teams would start beating the Bulls more consistently creating the illusion of a more fair playing field since many teams’ win-loss record would improve. But in reality, no team actually got better, the Bulls just got worse. Each victory would ring hollow and stadiums would be full of empty seats because people wouldn’t be interested in watching a “fixed” game.

In reality, Michael Jordan was allowed to be a superstar. And although he didn’t play on my team, his success benefited the entire NBA. As the Bulls traveled from city to city, stadiums were packed with people who wanted to watch this superstar play, even if it mean they had to suffer watching their home team lose. His superb skill also meant that other teams and players had to train longer and play harder if they wanted to beat him. This drive to beat him pushed them to get better. Those with the desire to truly compete at his level pushed themselves to improve. He was a better player, he was allowed to succeed, and everyone around him benefited from his success. And although his success meant that some teams had to lose, the whole NBA benefited from the crowds he drew.

If the US wants to continue to be the top world economy, its people need to get back to the original understanding of what competition truly means. They need to allow children to actually compete with each other and stop giving everyone trophies for participation. Let them lose if they aren’t as good as others and teach them how they can be better if they want to win next time. Stop building an entitlement mentality and start building the competitive spirit that has driven this great country since its inception. America is truly a blessed country but is now at a crossroads. Its people need to decide if they want to head down the road to mediocrity where those who strive hard are punished for their success because it creates a perceived inequality, or if we want to continue along the path of greatness where we still lead the world with our ingenuity, creativity and sheer hard work. I choose the later.