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.