Despotism loves alarm.

From the Reichstag fire so useful to the Nazis, to 9/11, in which a blameless country was sacrificed on the altar of our passions, we see outrages hijacked and used for purposes squarely adverse to proper responses - pursuit of justice, revelation of truth. Instead, crimes and sensational events can be refabricated with frightening facility to become weapons themselves. In the dazed aftermath of an astonishing atrocity, amid raging fear and anger, it's not difficult to whip up generalized frenzy and upheaval enough to install tyranny and assume control.

Oppression doesn't march in, crushing freedom with heavy boot-heels. It comes riding to the rescue - banners unfurled and bugles blaring. It offers refuge in storms of confusion, it promises safety from further attack. It has a friendly face and velvet gloves. The minions who help shred constitutions, torture anyone suspect, and dissolve the rule of law, do so because they're frightened, and because nothing can save them but order. In crises, they throw away everything they are - the better angels of their natures - because they are absolutely convinced it's the right thing to do.

In the past couple of weeks we've seen extremists attack and murder in the name of their aberrant beliefs; we have been repelled and we've railed at the injustice of their crimes.

And, in some case, we've overreacted.

In yesterday TPM, Josh Marshall asked (with link to a complementary story by Brian Beutler), in a brief post:

Does the Holocaust Museum shooting - and other recent events - vindicate that much-pilloried DHS report on right-wing extremist groups?

Well... does it?

Beutler cites the Department of Homeland Security report, prepared by a Bush appointee, as nothing short of prescient:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Since the latest tragedies were the work of a radical anti-abortionist and an avowed racist, it would appear past criticism of the report - a three-ring circus of controversy mostly fueled by right-wing press and radio earlier this year - were wrongheaded if not downright suspicious.

But was it?

The report focused on groups that may serve as seed beds for radical right-wing violence and extremism, mentioning,

"The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating in their communities could lead to potential emergence of terrorist group and lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Veterans' combat experience and expertise could be put to frightening use by those who see violence as an answer to problems that varied, according to the report, from perceptions that gun control - or outright gun confiscation - would befall a nation traditionally comfortable with packing (and unfortunately using) firearms; the election of an African-American president; and the longterm issue of illegal immigration and growing resentment against it.

But the report (this is from the Bush White House, remember) continuously harps on the economic downturn as a potential crucible of grievances - a meltdown melting pot that could focus and refine extremism from the Right, possibly turning mom-and-pop America into a Timothy-McVeigh nightmare.

The Left found itself defending the report against the usual gas-bags - Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and their ilk - and pointing out that an earlier DHS paper on leftwing terror didn't attract such crocodile tears.

But do these latest attacks really vindicate the DHS report? Surely, there have been violent acts by the radical Right before - in addition to McVeigh's astounding crime in Oklahoma City, there were the outrages of Robert Matthews and The Order in the 1980s; there have been isolated, lone-wolf attacks, as well, including the shooting at a Los Angeles Jewish community center a decade ago that left children on the wounded list.

My own objection to the DHS report, however, was that it's broad nature sanctioned "profiling" of groups not previously on anyone's terror list; remember, the report was prepared for law enforcement agencies across the country, and was meant for cops ranging from NYPD patrolmen to deputy sheriffs in backwoods Louisiana parishes.

Last night, MSNBC - especially Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow - led the drive to connect these latest shooters with groups sympathetic to their worldviews, anti-abortionists and an inch-wide, mile-deep paramilitary Right forever blaming, but rarely aiming. It was an unconvincing case, since American politics is like American suburbs - notable mostly for the multicultural nature of the groups and individuals attracted to issues in any given political fray.

Thus far, any conspiratorial participation in these crimes is suggested, not documented. It is, simply, guilt by association. In fact, it's all-but impossible to believe any group can maintain a public political profile in this country, and at the same time be party to these kinds of acts. 

Without a doubt, the murder at the Holocaust Museum, and that of Dr. George Tiller several days ago, are deep tragedies. And they are symbolic in nature, if only because the perpetrators in each hideous act meant their atrocities to be considered such.

But until conspiracies surface - if they do - these remain isolated incidents, and not the stuff of world-bending crisis. We don't need crackdowns. We don't need a layer cake of counterintuitive laws.

Let's mourn. Let's investigate. Let's be watchful.

Let's not overreact. We've done far too much of that lately.