I love watching the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games. It’s an opportunity to celebrate the city where the games take place. And then there’s the pride, wonder, and sense of possibilities on the faces of the Olympians themselves. They’re the best.

Milan’s opening ceremony did not disappoint. It was creative and exciting, celebrating art, design, fashion, dance and so much more. Most countries were cheered enthusiastically. Italy, of course, got massive cheers. So did Ukraine. There was especially exuberant applause for Canada and Mexico. The U.S. received respectful applause, with the exception of boos when J.D. Vance and his wife Usha were flashed on the screen. 

It got me thinking about this Administration’s mantra that the U.S. is superior to all other countries. No other country can do what we can do. We are the best at everything. The rest of the world needs to suck it up, just admit it, and deal with it. That’s the attitude. 

Don’t get me wrong. I think America’s pretty great most of the time—though I must admit not lately.

Let’s look objectively at the situation. When asked who the most talented classical musicians are, many might say Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, or the Beatles. When asked about their favorite artists, many might say Monet, Picasso, or Michaelangelo. When asked about their favorite wines or cuisines, many might say French, Italian, Thai, or Asian. When asked about their favorite classic authors, responses might include Dostoevsky, Flaubert, or Shakespeare. When asked about the most impressive architecture, the choices are endless. But most would not be U.S. based. You get my drift. 

My point is let’s not negate the massive accomplishments of the rest of the world. Let’s acknowledge and celebrate them. They are a testament to the creativity and spirit of humankind. 

Has America accomplished amazing achievements? Absolutely. We might get first-place ratings in technology, space exploration, medical discoveries, and more. Let’s be proud of them. But this Administration’s ethnocentric attitude that America is superior in all regards is dangerous. It heightens racist tendencies and encourages making premature judgments about others, resulting in harmful social categorizations that overlook the magic of cultural diversity. 

Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan is in itself is an effort to roll back the increasing diversity of the U.S. The attitude is that undeserving “others” are getting America’s resources and privileged treatment thereby shorting native-born White Americans. 

That same philosophy was crystal clear in Trump’s comments at Davos. Basically, Trump told NATO countries that America gives you so much, and we get nothing in return. All this giving means that America gets less for itself. Comments such as those result in other countries feeling disrespected and unacknowledged for their own contributions and amazing accomplishments. 

Trump’s remarks and actions resulted in several anti-American protests on the streets of Milan. No one enjoys being disrespected.

Surely, all Americans want the U.S. to excel in the Winter Olympic games this year. There is always a nervous medal count drama. But there should also be an awe at the amazing feats that these Olympians will accomplish—no matter from what country the Olympian originates. 

When we celebrate the accomplishments of others, we foster a supportive environment and reinforce the idea that success is not a finite resource. 

John Quincy Adams once wrote, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.”

Let us applaud the accomplishments and abilities of all Olympians. They will accomplish feats that most of us can only dream about. 

Maria Grant, formerly the principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm, now focuses on writing, reading, music, bicycling, and nature.

It’s hard not to blame the Supreme Court for a huge chunk of the nightmare we’re currently experiencing.

The Supreme Court is supposed to decide whether laws and government actions follow the Constitution. It is also supposed to interpret laws that Congress passes to decide if they are being carried out correctly.

Republicans have sought to prevent the Court from executing these and other functions when Court decisions would undermine executing their agenda. They have done so by establishing strict ideological tests for potential nominees and, whenever possible, blocking the confirmation of Justices that Democratic presidents nominate. The Justices that Republican presidents appointed have resorted to questionable interpretations of the Constitution, thereby producing decisions that align with the Republican agenda, sometimes overturning decades-long precedents.

Currently conservatives hold a strong majority on the Bench. The two Presidents Bush appointed John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Biden appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation play a central role in selecting conservative justices. Both organizations provided Trump with a list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court. All six current conservative Supreme Court Justices have ties to the Federalist Society. In many cases, the failure of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution was caused by these two organizations.

In recent years, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It also gave the President wide but not absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions in office.

Thanks to Trump’s almost unchecked immunity, he initiated military operations without consulting Congress and deployed National Guard troops to several cities across the country without consulting the governors of the states involved. He tore down the East Wing of the White House and took over the Kennedy Center, adding his name to it, without going through proper channels.

Congress has failed to step up to the plate. Despite private misgivings, congressional Republicans have acquiesced to the President’s authoritarian power grab. (More on Congress’s failures in a future column.)

The Supreme Court ruled that federal prosecutors overreached when they used an obstruction law against January 6 rioters. It has also dismantled some federal administrative laws such as environmental protection regulations. It struck down a ban on federal bump stock devices for guns. And it stated that race-based university admission policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina could no longer be used, upending decades of so-called affirmative action.

The Court also intervened in cases involving the Trump administration’s efforts to control independent agencies which many claimed was a major overreach.

Given the importance and ripple effect of the case regarding the President’s authority to levy tariffs (under the Constitution only the Congress can impose a tax), the Court has been disappointingly slow in issuing a decision.

More than 50 percent of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court’s job performance. Americans view the courts decisions as political rather than focused on interpretations of the law, with many viewing the Court as having a far-right agenda. Plus, scandals around undisclosed luxury travel and gifts accepted by justices, coupled with controversial rulings, have significantly damaged public trust. (Clarence Thomas took numerous undisclosed trips, funded by Republican billionaire Harlan Crowe, involving private jets, yachts, and expensive resorts. Samuel Alito flew an upside-down flag outside his Virginia home, a symbol of the effort to block certification of the 2020 presidential election results.)

So, how can this situation be rectified? An ideal but unrealistic answer would be for Presidents to select Supreme Court justices based on their competency, experience, and commitment to the Constitution. Because this now seems like a pipe dream, immediate reforms are needed.

There have been serious calls for structural change including term limits. The Center for American Progress advocates for 18-year term limits to prevent justices from holding power for life and to make the appointment process more predictable.

Some propose court expansion to balance the ideological tilt, though this is seen as highly controversial, and some see it as a threat to long-term stability. I agree.

There are also calls for legislative checks that would allow Congress to use its power to limit the Court’s authority on certain issues or to override specific interpretations of federal law.

Last year, the Court released a code of conduct, but there currently are no enforcement mechanisms.

The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court as an important part of the system of checks and balances that are essential to our freedom. The Supreme Court is meant to serve the people, not the partisan interests of presidents who nominate individual justices or senators who vote to approve them.

Chief Justice John Roberts once wrote, “I will be vigilant to protect the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court, and I will work to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and safeguards those liberties that make this land one of endless possibilities for all Americans.”

These words have not been followed with actions. Mr. Chief Justice, you, and some of your colleagues, have let the country down. We are far from a country with endless possibilities for all Americans. Your failures are a major disappointment and, much more seriously, have jeopardized our democracy.

Maria Grant, formerly the principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm, now focuses on writing, reading, music, bicycling, and nature.