Sleight, noun. The use of dexterity or cunning, especially so as to deceive¹

Coincidentally, "sleight" is only one letter away from "sleigh," as in Santa's. At one, all-too-brief, time during my childhood, numerous conspirators with whom I share DNA used cunning "so as to deceive" my cousins and me, much to our delight (and theirs). Whenever t'was the night before Christmas, my father and his married brothers shepherded their respective wives and children to the apartment shared by their unmarried siblings, namely, my Aunts Mary and Rose and my fortuitously-named Uncle Nick. Once we were nestled all snug (and orderly) in our seats, we'd hear a hand bell ringing insistently. (No fireplace and Santa apparently doesn't do knocking or doorbells.)

Amid the ensuing clamor, some combination of Mary, Rose and Nick would rush to the door to escort the sack-toting magic elf into their living room. (Although I never noticed then, I now realize that all three of them never rushed to greet Santa.) However, an unwelcome Santa truth, paid forward to me by my much older cousin Johnny, killed a magical part of my six-year old life far too abruptly and too soon.

But, this is, after all, not a Proustian board. So, on to sleights of politicians, with whom I do not share DNA, but who also use cunning "so as to deceive." Although the sleights of politicians may also comfort and joy (and lull) us, they are almost always unhealthy for us. So, from time to time, I try to "Cousin Johnny" their sleights. Today my sleight target is "America is a democracy in which democratic stuff abounds." Oh, how that sleight rings and resonates, much like sleigh bells, the now cracked Liberty Bell and the odd Santa-held hand bell! But, a sleight it is.

No matter how many times Americans may have recited and heard the Pledge of Allegiance, many of them seem to derive comfort and joy from "knowing" that they live in a democracy, much as, during a wondrous time of my life, I comforted and joyed in "knowing" that I'd see "the real Santa" every Christmas Eve. In reality, colonists having already rejected a sovereignty, the Founders had only two government models from which to choose, the (patrician) republic of Ancient Rome or the democracy of Ancient Athens;² and they constituted our federal government a republic. Despite that, notice how many times people mention "democracy" in connection with the U.S.A. versus how few times they mention "republic." The only reason that occurs to me for the the illogical disparity is that "democracy" is more of a "feel good" word, as comforting to us plebians as a pacifier is to an infant.

Indeed, we have thrown around the word "democracy" so much for so long that it has just about lost its original meaning. It's now an indistinct portmanteau, some vague conflation of suffrage, sociopolitical equality and open access. Perhaps it is now used least frequently in its original meaning--the democratic system of government that Ancient Athenian male citizens enjoyed. I bet that many Americans, even politicians, don't know that a system of government like Ancient Athenian democracy existed. How does one succeed in urging people to try for a democracy if the people believe that they are already enjoying the benefits of a democracy? (Given the internet, democracy is perhaps more possible now than it's been since Ancient Athens.)

One of the worst misuses of "democracy" I noticed recently was Andrea Mitchell's commentary on Trump's first visit to the White House as President-Elect. As he and President Obama shook hands on the steps of the White House, Ms. Mitchell exclaimed triumphantly, "That's democracy!" Good grief, no, Ms. Mitchell. "That" may have been manners, or a vestigial gesture showing that both men were unarmed, or an archetypal U.S. political photo op. Whatever it was, though, shaking hands in front of the White House has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. It doesn't even have to do with peaceful transfer of power, which can happen within any form of government and which will happen in the republic of the U.S.A. on January 20, 2017, Lord willing and the Potomac don't rise.

Please don't rush to a dictionary, or you may well miss the point of this essay. Dictionaries simply reflect current usage and, as already stated, longstanding and widespread misuse of "democracy" has diluted and distorted its once-powerful meaning. The Founders never would have understood the terms that had to be concocted because we diluted the meaning of "democracy." To the Founders, a term like "direct democracy" would have been a redundancy and a term like "representative democracy," would have been an oxymoron: If your system of government included representatives, however chosen, you lived in a republic; if all those who had a right to vote, however chosen or however few, voted on issues like wars, taxes, subsidies, etc., with no representatives involved or needed, you lived in a democracy. Period.

Not only did the Founders constitute us as a republic, but the Founders both enabled and caused our republic to be about as exclusionary as they dared. In 1789, only an unwhopping and underwhelming six percent of the U.S. population had a right to vote on anything.³ At that, the only federal office for which that paltry six percent could vote was Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. State legislatures and electors voted for members of the U.S. Senate and for the President, respectively. (As we know, to this day, only one of those things has changed, in great part because the Founders made amending the Constitution so difficult.⁴) At that, the Framers had such distaste for, and fear of, us plebeians that they took care to make the U.S. House less powerful than than the U.S. Senate. Not to mention keeping the Constitutional Convention secret from the plebes who had just won the country back from the British.⁵

Inasmuch as political parties had not yet formed by 1789, I assume, but do not know, that the Founders intended that Governors or state legislators would chose electors--and, until 1775, the state system had been the one established and maintained by the Crown and its appointees. I am somewhat surprised that the Constitution, which, with state laws, created such an exclusionary plutocracy, did not incite a second American Revolution. Then again, a government headed by some sort of powerful sovereign was about the only other form of government at the time, so perhaps I can understand after all.

The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments eventually forced all states to expand suffrage greatly.⁶ However, obviously, increasing the number and/or categories of people entitled to vote did not somehow alter the basic form of government, which remains a republic. What determines whether a system is a democracy or a republic is not how many people or how many categories of people get to vote, but what they get to vote on. No one questions that Ancient Athens was a democracy, yet only about a fifth of its residents were entitled to vote. However, every Athenian who did have a right to vote was entitled to vote on every government matter.

Not only were we established as a semi-aristocratic, exclusionary republic, but, today, our elected representatives are hardly either "our" or "representatives." Heck, we're not even sure they're "elected!" Since about 1854, with relatively few exceptions, only Republicans or Democrats have won elections on the federal, state or local levels. So, as a practical matter, in the vaunted "democracy" in which so many of us like to believe we live, the right to vote has meant the right to vote for (1) the choice of the Democratic Party; (2) the choice of the Republican Party; or (3) a candidate who is certain to lose the election. As recent leaks have proved, we may not even be dealing with the choice of a Party, but the choice of a few who control a Party. And, since many of us believe firmly in the possibility of election fraud in both primary and the general elections, what remains, really?

Do these anointed elected (maybe) representatives actually represent us? Do they even try to pretend to represent us? Politicians who believe re-election may be close will poll incessantly, but when was the last time a representative of yours polled to try to ascertain the views of his or her constituents about a matter coming up for a vote? Whenever politicians urge you to contact your representatives to "let them know how you feel," they're never asking you to call them or to call all your federal representatives: They're asking you to call only members of the opposite Party. In fact, I once heard a Sunday political talking head sharply scold one member of the U.S. House who mentioned trying to get a sense of the desires of his constituents for not "leading." Hello, Mr. Talking Head? Members of the House and Senate are called our "representatives," not our "leaders."

Why anyone urges us to contact our representatives mystifies me. To try to give us an illusion of power? Most of our (perhaps) elected "representatives" vote with their own caucus most of the time for many reasons, including their own respective and collective political futures. When they do not, I strongly suspect kabuki, as with the (to me) suspiciously close Amash Conyers vote.⁷ I cannot recall a single instance in which a member of the House or Senate announced that he or she changed a vote because he or she had heard from constituents, even though such an announcement would likely earn political capital. If any of them ever even mumble something in passing about having heard from constituents, it is generally some vague, prefatory comment about feedback from constituents being about even.⁸ They don't even specify the total number of contacts they received, let alone disclose how many contacts were pro or con a particular issue.

In sum, dear reader, even if the U.S.A. were ever to have one hundred percent suffrage, the U.S.A. was established a republic; the U.S.A. has always been a republic; and the U.S.A. is highly likely to remain a republic for the rest of its existence. (Did I mention we're still a republic?) Moreover, our representatives, who may or may not be elected fairly, don't even make a pretense of representing us. "Democracy" is far too precious and powerful a concept/word to use to describe this decidedly undemocratic state of affairs. And anything that even might contribute to the already pandemic complacency and/or apathy of Americans IMO does the 99% no favors. So, no matter how much comfort and joy using the word "democracy" may provide, please, please use it wisely and precisely.
________________________________________________________________________________________

¹ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sleight

² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_the_Roman_Republic; http://www.ushistory.org/civ/6a.asp; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy; http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=3 I will not footnote each time I "lift" information from any of these sources. I highly recommend reading at least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy for an overview.

³ https://transcribe.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13...

⁴ http://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution

⁵ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp (great source); http://teachingamericanhistory.org/static/convention/themes/1.html (rule of secrecy)

⁶ States had expanded suffrage without being forced. For example, by 1856, all states had, on their own, dropped the requirement of owning property (which then meant only that white males who did not own property could vote). Some states, however, retained the option of requiring payment of a poll tax all the way until 1964. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

⁷ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amash-Conyers_Amendment The vote was 217 against; 205 for. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h412 Only Democrats with nothing to lose voted against it, but enough Democrats voted against it to kill it.

⁸ Hillary's speech urging the invasion of Iraq is an example of a reference to hearing from constituents that is intentionally vague and likely untrue. (I don't know anyone or know of anyone IRL who believed Iraq was behind 911 or a threat to us.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA

___________________________________________________________________________________________