I would never suggest there is an equivalency between playing in the Wimbledon  finals and running for president of the United States.  But I am fairly positive the desire and drive to raise the championship trophy is the same.  Unfortunately, that is where the similarity ends.

Yesterday, the women’s Wimbledon final between Serena Williams and Angelique Kerber was as hard fought as any political campaign.  For an hour and a half the opponents dished out everything they had in them.  Both brought their “A” game to Centre Court.  The winner was the better of two pretty damn great tennis players.

At the conclusion, no one who watched the matched considered the slightest possibility Kerber handed the contest to the other as a result of poor execution or major mistakes.  The consensus was Williams’ superior play, especially the speed and accuracy of her first serves, was the difference.  ESPN announcer Mary Carillo suggested viewers could live a hundred years and not see anything like this again.

So how did Kerber react to being outplayed?  In the post-match interview, she said, “It’s always a great honor to play (Serena) in a finals.”  On Facebook, Kerber added, “Big congrats to Serena Williams.  Your support makes this so special.”  Williams returned the compliment in her post-match interview.  She talked about how a great player like Kerber lifts her game, forces her to be her best.

That’s not to say both players were flawless in their strategies and execution.  On occasion, Serena lost points on drop shots instead of sticking to strong ground strokes which had been her bread and butter throughout the match.  Kerber seemed unable to adjust to Williams first serves or take advantage of second serves.  Pointing out these glitches was unnecessary.  Tennis aficionados did not need someone else to identify these weaknesses or the impact on the eventual outcome.

Now, consider the current race for president.  Most Americans are unhappy with their choice between major party candidates.  Both are flawed, but that is true of most human beings, much less presidential contenders.  Perhaps this dissatisfaction is due to the fact the candidates “lower their game,” believing it is necessary to constantly point out their opponents negatives.  I do not need Donald Trump to constantly tell me Hillary Clinton lies.  James Comey’s testimony before the House Government Oversight Committee was good enough for me.  And I do not need Hillary Clinton to remind me Trump is not as successful as he claims to be or that he panders to hate groups which represent the worst of America.  I can make that judgment on my own based on the facts.

I would much prefer if each candidate tried to secure my vote as follows. “My opponent has laid out (his/her) plan for (choose any issue).  I’m sure (he/she) honestly believes it is good for America. That’s OK.  But I have a better plan. Let me share it with you.”  And sometime during the campaign, wouldn’t it be nice if a candidate said, “I want to thank my opponent for forcing me to better articulate my vision for America and how we get there.”

I am not holding my breath, waiting for this to happen.  But one can dream.  How good would it feel as an American to have the same reaction about an election I had at the end of the Williams/Kerber match?

WOW! That was great.  Too bad someone had to lose.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP