Steele: Democrats want to destroy savings

One of my pet peeves is the way that political figures often insinuate that their opponents want some bad outcome that might result from their opponents' policies.

For example, in an email to supporters today, RNC chairman Michael Steele claims that part of the "liberal Democrats' agenda" is to "destroy the savings of millions of middle-class Americans":

I don't believe there is anything patriotic about giving more of your hard-earned money to the government to bankroll the liberal Democrats' agenda to increase spending to record levels, change the tax code to redistribute the wealth of working families, and destroy the savings of millions of middle-class Americans.

Steele may believe that the effect of Democratic tax policies will be to "destroy the savings of millions of middle-class Americans" but the phrase "Democratic agenda" implies that Democrats want to do so.

This intentional confusion of motive with projected result is something that crops up again and again. Examples include NRSC chairman John Ensign claiming that one of the top legislative priorities of "Big Labor, MoveOn.org and extremist environmental groups" is "weakening our national defense" (one of numerous such GOP attacks on dissent since 9/11) and liberal pundit Eric Alterman claiming President Bush's opposition to SCHIP expansion constitutes a "preference for allowing poor kids to get sick and die" (see also this post). It's a corrosive and unfair practice.

Comments

[David]

A few quick points:

Steele's locution is vague enough that one cannot tell for sure whether he's asserting that the Dems want to destroy savings or that this will be a result of their policies.

At what point does the inevitability of a result imply desire? E.g., if I fire a gun at someone's heart, can I claim that his death was accidental because I didn't want the bullet to go in a straight line?

Steele's point is not smart politics IMHO. He may well be right that Obama's policies will lead to high inflation thus destroying savings. However, I suspect that voters in debt outnumber those with substantial savings. So, inflation may help more voters than it hurts.

[News Reference]

This will need to be repeated a million times:

Republican President Reagan more than doubled the US debt.

Between Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush I they more than QUADRUPLED the US debt.

Republican President Bush II nearly doubled the US debt again (and the bills are still coming in).

Republican economic policies redistributed the wealth to the wealthiest and away from the middle class for over 30 years. Republican economic policies destroyed "the savings of millions of middle-class Americans."

Republican's right wing economic theories directly led to the destruction of trillions in wealth as well as creating the global financial crisis that put America on the road to a 2nd Great Depression.

The only thing that's currently keeping America out of a 2nd Great Depression is liberal government intervention.

Those are facts.

Here's an insinuation: The right wing DOES NOT CARE that their reckless fiscal policies and voodoo economics have damaged America and Americans.

It's a 'judgement call' but at some point looking at the results of the last 30 years of the ascendancy of conservatism speaks for itself.

While many Republican voters are too innumerate and ignorant of history to know the facts, and many Republican voters are far too trusting of Republican leadership, the Republican leadership itself is far, far too smart and too educated to not know the truth.

At some point an honest conservative has to admit that the failure of conservatism's leaders hasn't been a failure of understanding, it's been a failure of character, a failure of integrity, and a failure of conscience.