Leonard Pitts: Arguments over the possibility of being elected a disturbing diversion

Our subject today is a word.

This seems to be the word of the moment, at least of the political left. It is hard to read an opinion page or watch cable news without confronting this tedious term, this tedious idiom.

For the sake of heaven, please, stop saying "faculty of eligibility".

Note, please, that the last president was a black man with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama Jr., who arrived at the post with just a few years of senatorial experience. His successor was a reality show host with no government experience and a history of racist, misogynistic and incompetent behavior.

Neither was eligible by any traditional measure. Both were elected, nonetheless. So what does "faculty" mean?

Some might argue that the word, in this context, simply denotes a search for the best-equipped candidate to eliminate Donald Trump. Whatever degree is true, we can not argue with that.

But here's the thing: it's hard to escape the belief that those who raise the issue of "fitness for the job" have much more in mind. Which means a perceived need to influence Trump voters in the next year's elections. This is the inevitable subtext of the ongoing debate about whether Democratic candidates go too far in the left by proposing plans to, for example, cancel student loan debt or extend health care to all.

Excuse me, but: "too much left" for whom?

This does not in any way support one of the bold ideas put forth by people like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. It's more like saying that something is wrong when the audacity itself is identified as a problem. One does not learn to expect the courage of a party that worries, like Hamlet, to dismiss the most worthy president of this genre in history, but even according to the rigorous standards of the Democrats, this debate is discouraging.

Ask yourself the following question: what was the last time you saw the GOP question whether its policies were attractive to Obama voters? To win or lose, the right knows what it believes, and that does not change anything to drive out the voters who despise it. Note that after his "autopsy" of 2012, which had advised the party to be more inclusive, the GOP has instead doubled its white grievance message – and carried it off.

In all fairness to the Democrats, it is probably easier for Republicans to be ruthlessly determined, as their audience is relatively monochromatic and revolves around a few basic issues. Embrace guns, despise abortion, immigrants and gays and drop the name of Jesus from time to time and you have practically covered all the basics.

Democrats, on the other hand, must oppose a heavy-handed coalition of interests in reproductive rights, immigrant rights, LGBTQ rights, workers' rights, Afro Americans, the environment, health care, student loan forgiveness, criminal justice reform and gun control, to name a few.

And while this is a good argument for a third party, it makes you look ridiculous to chase voters who have fully explained themselves when they hit their ballots for an orange racist crook: they simply are not that for you. Do with. Decide what you believe in and find the courage to defend it.

The arguments about the faculty of electing are, at best, a boring annoyance for the political obsessed. But when they become a way to stifle debate – especially for a cause as sterile as wooing Trump voters – it's time to remember the lesson of the night Obama triumphed 11 years ago. Namely, neither the experts nor the pols define who is eligible.

What is the purpose of elections?

Leonard Pitts is a columnist for the Miami Herald. [email protected]