Find all blog entries at A Commoner Manifesto Substack.
A Philosophical Review of "Republicans Pounce"
Well, that didn’t take too long.
ABC’s Mary Bruce frets on Wednesday’s ‘World News Tonight’ that “Republican Senator Susan Collins [is] pouncing” on the series of scandals against “oyster farmer” Democrat Graham Platner[.]
Google AI says (when I asked from my phone for “the meaning of “Republicans pounce”):
“Republicans pounce" is a media trope and conservative critique used to describe news headlines that frame Republicans (or conservatives) as opportunistic attackers whenever a political controversy occurs.
But from my Chromebook Google AI says:
“Republicans pounce” (or similar phrasing like “conservatives seize”) is a media trope frequently used in political journalism. It describes situations where news outlets report on a controversy by focusing on the Republican Party’s reaction to a story rather than the underlying issue itself.
Wikipedia says that Republicans do the “pounce” thing as much as Democrats. But Grok says
It refers to headlines or stories that frame Republican criticism or reactions to a Democratic scandal, gaffe, policy failure, or controversy as aggressive, opportunistic, or overly partisan “pouncing” — rather than focusing on the substance of the underlying issue itself.
“Republicans pounce” is a well-known political phrase and media criticism meme, primarily used by conservatives in the U.S. to highlight perceived bias in mainstream media coverage.
Grok says that “Conservatives argue this reveals a double standard:”
When Republicans mess up → Media headlines focus directly on the scandal (”GOP in disarray,” etc.).
When Democrats mess up → Media often leads with how Republicans are reacting (”Republicans pounce on [issue]”).
One thing that isn’t coming out is that Republican commentators typically report on “Republicans pounce” articles as a rather comical examples of Democrats living in their lefty-liberal bubble. They seem to be shocked by any Republican criticism of Democrats, yet are utterly clueless about the incessant drumbeat of Democrat railings about Republicans as racist-sexist-homophobes. But then, why would they? The whole point of Democratic politics is that Republicans are not just the enemy, but the evil enemy.
Actually, when you think about it, “Republicans pounce” is a rerun of Ronald Reagan’s “there they go again” line first expressed in an October 1980 presidential debate against Jimmy Carter who accused Reagan of wanting to cut Medicare. It was a way of brushing off a nuclear attack often used by Democrats who want to tell the voters that, given half a chance, Republicans will abolish Social Security and Medicare. The line worked so well for Reagan that other politicians, including Bill Clinton, have used it.
But the real way to understand this is to understand that, for Republicans, politics is always a rather shabby affair. Democrats still seem to think that, with the right politics, they can save the world. For Republicans cheap political shots from the Democrats are par for the course. For Democrats, Republican criticism is evidence that Republicans aren’t serious people.
I wonder who is right?
Still I wonder whether ABC’s Mary Bruce understands that a reference of “Republicans pounce” in a news broadcast is merely communicating to Republicans that you are a partisan Democrat and not a real reporter. Probably not.
| Thu, 11 Jun 2026 23:09:04 GMT |
The Worse the Better
It wasn’t Lenin that invented the phrase; “the worse the better.” It was Nikolay Chernyshevsky, according to the experts.
Other similar judgements are:
“How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” — Hemingway.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. — H.L. Mencken.
“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop” — Herb Stein
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher
And there is the notion, from analysis of Chinese history, that the average dynasty lasts for about 70 years.
My judgement is that the dynasty of the European educated class is reaching its sell-by date. There is no mystery about this. I believe that it issues from the very nature of political power, that in politics you hammer your enemies and gift your friends.
But as far as the economy, or morality, or art, the political class doesn’t have a clue.
Sometimes the middle class is cunning enough to flummox their noble rulers. That’s what Adam Smith said:
In Book III of The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith describes how medieval burghers (town merchants and artisans) secured their liberty by paying rents or taxes directly to their feudal lords or sovereign in exchange for autonomy. This arrangement established the foundation for modern markets by protecting citizens from arbitrary plundering and fostering the rule of law.
I just learned that from P.J. O’Rourke. I had no idea. Those bourgeois rascals! No wonder Karl Marx had a problem with the bourgeoisie. Apparently the burghers paid their noble masters a fixed amount in gold. The noble lords were too dumb or something to institute an unrealized capital gains tax like our present rulers are proposing in order to keep those greedy billionaires on a short leash.
Now, do you think that our tech billionaires are smart enough to pay the educated class enough to pay for their administrative state underlings and their NGO princes to keep them from demolishing the AI boom? While they change the world while everyone is looking the other way?
See, I think the current regime is coming apart at the seams because of all the stupid things they have done over the past century, and now they are running out of other peoples’ money.
And they are running out of voters, so they have to cheat to keep the grift going for one more season.
And all their noble gestures — from helping the workers to helping the poor to helping the blacks — are turning against them. Why? Because in the words of George Eliot’s Mr. Brooke, arguing against “going too far,” it’s one thing for the rulers to make sure that the workers get a decent shot at the job market, it’s one thing to help the poor when the rulers have screwed up the economy, and it’s a good thing to put a stop to Jim Crow. But when you “go too far” you create waste and fraud and abuse. And you lack the power to fix it because all the people benefiting from government programs will get really mad if you take away their bennies.
If our rulers were so good at helping workers and the poor then why are there thousands of homeless in the streets of our big cities? If anti-racism is such a good thing then why are rulers all over the west failing to be outraged as minority youth are knifing ordinary white people? And why are they pushing anti-free-speech laws to keep wrong-think out of social media? And why do our rulers need to curate the vote at every election? And why do the noble rulers of Europe keep disqualifying “hard right” parties from the electoral process.
Like I say, our rulers are desperately hanging onto power, and the only way they know to do it is to cheat.
Until, as Hemingway said, you get to the second way of going bankrupt. Suddenly.
You could say they deserve it, but I feel for them. If only they were smart enough to know that politics needs to be kept down to a dull roar, and that human society needs far more from billionaires, moralists, and artists.
But they don’t get it. Any more than American philosopher Lina Lamont, who said, to all the world: “whaddya think I yam. Dumb or something?” Bless her heart.
| Thu, 11 Jun 2026 04:36:32 GMT |
Switch to Substack for more blog posts
Christopher Chantrill
He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, and is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington. Click for more.
“I love this guy.” — Steve Ballmer
A Commoner Manifesto
Commoners have nothing to lose but their shame
All human differences are ultimately religious ones — Cardinal Manning
Kant: We cannot know things-in-themselves, but only appearances. Me.
The simplest way to understand human society is as Three Layers such as Nobles, Yeomen, and Serfs.
My take on Three Layers is my Three Peoples Theory of Creatives, Responsibles, and Subordinates.
I believe that we moderns live in Three Worlds: the War World of politics, the Market World of the economy, and the Life World of family and neighborhood.
And the trouble with politics is that it reduces human society to a war against the enemy, as determined by Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt.
The world that we all live in today is the one created by the German Turn in philosophy, psychology, science, and meaning.
But our modern elite, the educated elite, has taken, I believe, a Wrong Turn and has imposed a cultural Great Reaction on the world, a lurch back to the primitive. This manifests in the elite’s conceited Activism Culture and its patronage of Subordinate people as its Little Darlings.
The principal reason for the elite’s Wrong Turn has been that it does not understand and does not want to understand how the Three Peoples’ Religions are necessarily different.
The root of the educated elite’s Wrong Turn is its conceit that it knows what the world needs. I think there is a better way; I call it “A Good Life Better than the Left”.
ABC of Politics – Activism Culture – “Anatomy of Revolution” – Allyism – Critical Theory – Downstream-ism – Dutch Finance – German Turn – Good Life – Great Reaction – Little Darlings – Perfect Plan – Women in the Public Square – Ruling Class – Three Layers – Three Peoples – Three Peoples Religion – Tribalism – Two Cultures – Wrong Turn
Today’s topic:
Women in the Public Square: What does a "feminine sensibility" mean?
