Whenever some lunatic commits a hate crime, there's a parsing of his insane notebook scribblings and straight-faced analysis of how he came to his "philosophy." Paul Krugman pursues this unfortunate sport by attaching James von Brunn's killing of a guard at the Holocaust Museum to a political viewpoint, in this case, "a right-wing extremism" that is "being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment."

In doing so, Krugman draws a very squiggly line from the Oklahoma City bomber to the murderer of Dr. Tiller to the rantings of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck to the provocations of Rush Limbaugh to the melodrama of actor Jon Voight to the unremarkable thank-you for Voight's speech by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

My main question isn't what right-winger drove von Brunn over the edge to violence. It's who let him out on the streets after, in 1981, he entered the Federal Reserve System headquarters in Washington with a revolver, hunting knife and sawed-off shotgun. Von Brunn's plan, he told police, was to take the Fed board hostage "to focus news media attention on their responsibility for high interest rates and the nation's economic difficulties," according to The New York Times.

That alone should qualify one for permanent residence in a high-security mental facility. Attaching a political motive to the craziness only dignifies it.

The O'Reillys and Becks are your basic publicity hounds. They are not the conservative movement's heralds but among their worst problems. Limbaugh says some silly and irresponsible things, but you can't hang the "hatemonger" sign around his neck. Krugman does -- then tries to hang Limbaugh around the GOP's neck by noting a poll in which 10 percent of Republicans identify the radio entertainer as "the main person who speaks for the Republican Party today." I thought the percentage would be a lot higher.

As for actor Voight, his supposedly inflammatory speech involved calling Obama a "false prophet."  And he told attendees at a Republican fundraiser that "we and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression." Colorful but nothing here suggests any place for accomplishing this other than the ballot box.

And I speak as one who is generally happy with President Obama.

In any case, these semi-persecutory statements have easily been matched on the liberal side. Recall actor Alec Baldwin's 2006 blog post holding that Dick Cheney "terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately." And that was very tame next to Baldwin's televised opinion during the Clinton impeachment proceedings that in another country, "we would stone [Judiciary Committee Chair] Henry Hyde to death, and we would go to their homes and kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families, for what they're doing to this country." Baldwin later apologized.

I'm sure that Krugman's sentiments have been warmly applauded on the cyber left. But just as rightwingers' intemperate attacks hurt the conservative agenda, low blows delivered by prominent liberals don't help their cause.  Most Americans like a fair fight.

As for James von Brunn, he is, at bottom, a head case. Whatever fig leaf of philosophy he might use to cover his personal disintegration is beside the point.

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------