President Obama said recently that America has lost its “competitive edge.” When I read this I thought: “Lost our competitive edge? Mr. President, I know you’re busy, but don’t you ever watch reality TV?” Each week, laggards are eliminated by vote of the participants, a winnowing process involving shifting voting cartels that in the business world would not survive Federal Trade Commission scrutiny.
Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice” owed much to “Survivor” — the shows shared the same producer. In “The Apprentice,” participants competed for the opportunity to work for the Trump organization.
Here again, backstabbing was not unknown, although the gimlet eye of Trump, the final arbiter, usually saw through such machinations, suggesting he’d forgotten more about cutthroat competition than the contestants could ever know.
Since the days of the “Original Amateur Hour,” show business has been a natural for competition. Today, we have “American Idol,” “Dancing with the Stars,” “So You Think You Can Dance?,” “The Voice,” and so forth. Contestants on these shows are judged by a panel of experts.
Mirroring the widespread public distrust of elite opinion, the panels’ decisions can be changed by viewers voting over the telephone. Thus the market, at least sometimes, rules.
Similar shows on different topics abound. HGTV has “The All-American Handyman” (Mr. Fixits go head-to-head). The Food Network has “Sweet Genius” (pastry competition), “Chopped” (weird combination of ingredients competition), “Iron Chef” (secret ingredient competition), the “Worst Cook in America” (rehabilitated incompetent cooks competition), and “Cupcake Wars” (small cake and small cake display competition). Perhaps as a result, other networks now air weight loss competitions, such as the “Biggest Loser.”
I do not suggest this trend is exclusively American — some of the most popular competition shows originated elsewhere. Nor is it entirely new. We had game shows when I was growing up and, of course, sports, although, significantly, nothing like Fantasy Football which allows ordinary fans to use NFL players to compete against each other.
What is impressive, and new, is the remarkable amount of competition programming on American television today. Of course these shows are trivial.
But they reflect other developments, less trivial, such as the growth of entrepreneurial studies in our business schools. Years ago, everyone at b-school wanted to work at McKinsey. Then Goldman Sachs. Today, many strive to be entrepreneurs, the ultimate competitive warriors.
Beyond suggesting a serious rethink about how much television I watch, what is there to conclude? Here is a start. Americans like competition. Americans want to compete themselves. Americans want to win.
This may not be evident to many in Washington. Here, regulatory overreach works as a governor on the competitive drive: Regulators don’t want anyone to lose and that insures no one really wins.
On Capitol Hill, the advantages of incumbency, and, in the House, the pervasiveness of gerrymandering, means that most members of Congress do not face serious races for their seats.
Meanwhile, retaining the presidency is largely a matter of raising a remarkable amount of money and using that money for media “buys” in key markets that effectively mitigate the rigors of competition. When was the last time you saw a real debate?
No wonder, then, that the president is concerned about America losing its competitive edge. It has lost its edge — in Washington. If we could restore in our city the energy of, say, “Cupcake Wars,” President Obama might be amazed to see just how sharp the American competitive instinct is.
John Endean is president of the American Business Conference, a Washington-based coalition of leaders of midsize American companies.
