“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,” wrote late journalist P.J. O’Rourke in 1992. This creature is, he continued, “miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.” One could now think, “My, I wish O’Rourke would’ve stopped mincing words and told us how he really felt.” But, today, a generation later, many are posing the question he was attempting to answer.

For example, a Monday article headline asks, “Why Are Academics [generally hard-left] — and Others — So Nasty?” The author, Christopher Chantrill, wonders why leftists are so dogmatic and censorial. Another article headline, appearing the day before, queried, “Are they crazy? Or are they just leftist? With some women, it’s hard to tell.”

The latter focuses on that not-sideshow-worthy human oddity now called a “Karen.” This is, of course, a person, typically a middle-aged white woman, who’s entitled, demanding, and usually woke.

And videos of these individuals going off the rails are legion. But the article provides an example of such that could be the upside-down-world pièce de résistance. Author Andrea Widburg introduces it, writing:

The video shows a woman chasing after a man because he violated her standards by having a purebred dog, from which she inferred that he left some unnamed, unknown, unloved mutt to die in an animal shelter. The video is long but mesmerizing because the woman is indeed the living embodiment of those women who compulsively impose their extreme and self-righteous values on everyone — and they’re almost invariably white women who have a college-educated vibe.

The video, which really must be seen to believed, is provided below by X user PDX Real.

For those supposing the above could be staged, know that, according to PDX, the woman has identified herself. (Relevant tweet below).

It’s real — and really pathetic. But at least Noel Martin was ranting at a being who could comprehend her words (if not her insanity). This wasn’t the case with a California woman who started screaming at mating ducks. No fooling. She was upset, you see, that a drake (male duck) was imposing himself like a Karen does her ideology. She eventually even entered the water and tried to intervene (video below) and topple the Anas patriarchy.

We don’t know if California Karen expected Donald Duck to woo the females with wine, candy, and roses. But, newsflash for her: This is how ducks mate the world over. Animals are not anthropomorphic creatures as depicted in the cartoons, with intellect, free will, and a moral compass. They act on instinct. Speaking of which brings us to the deeper issue.

Unfortunately, leftist “insanity” is not uncommon. This is the group, after all, that believes in sex-switching children using puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. And as I illustrated in “Violence, Inc.: A Leftist Enterprise,” perhaps 99 percent of our political violence originates with left-wingers. “This psychotic behavior is also not new,” noted commentator Megan Fox in 2018. “Emily Davison [1872-1913], suffragette, threw herself in front of a derby horse in protest and was promptly trampled to death.”

As to what’s actually going on, the aforementioned Widburg poses a question:

As a society, it’s probably important that we know whether leftism makes people crazy or whether crazy people are drawn to leftism.

(Actually, it’s both a cause and an effect.)

As to this, note here that a 2021 study found that more than 50 percent of young, liberal, white women have been diagnosed with some form of “mental health” problem. Yet there’s a reason that term is in quotation marks. As psychologist John Rosemond once pointed out, we’re now diagnosing as psychological problems phenomena that were once recognized as moral problems.

When evaluating serial killers, garden-variety criminals, someone who self-harms, the pathologically promiscuous, or most anyone else, a question invariably arises.

What happened during the person’s upbringing to make him what he is?

Early-years socialization is of utmost significance, of course. Hence the Jesuit saying, “Show me a child at seven, and I’ll show you the man.” Yet when analyzing “insane” leftist behavior, the question about upbringing isn’t asked enough. (This is not to say it isn’t posed at all.) Instead, focus may be on school and university indoctrination. This is a factor, too, no doubt. But then we must ask: Why do some youths just roll their eyes at wokeness while others eat it up?

Some may wonder about the influence of genetic and psychological factors, and, for sure, man is a complex being. Recognizing, however, that these issues are largely moral is important because correct diagnosis is a prerequisite for correct cure.

As to this, some may criticize the mention of serial killing, garden-variety crime, promiscuity, and the given “leftist” behavior in the same breath. They are very different, too, in degree of evil. But then there’s what they have in common: They all constitute immoral behavior. Note that this is true even if you believe a given person was subject to genetic and/or psychological mitigating factors. The nature of the behavior is what it is.

Now, expressing a sentiment relevant here, Professor Thomas Sowell once warned:

Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.

For sure. Babies are all id; they scream when unhappy, lash out when angry, and show exuberant joy when supremely pleased. There is no moderation. Of course, children are born with different basic personalities, and this influences the civilization process’ difficulty. But this only means that with some, most of the “morality jigsaw puzzle” pieces fall into place more readily. With others, more effort is required. But civilized they all must be. How?

Ancient Greek philosopher Plato, whom I often cite in this matter, explained the process well. Children should be raised in an atmosphere of nobility and grace, he emphasized. In this way, they will develop an emotional attachment to virtue during the period when such attachments are formed. Then, if they reach the age of reason as a virtuous being, they’ll be more receptive to the dictates of reason.

Unfortunately, when raised in a corrupt atmosphere, children can even more easily develop an attachment to vice. Upon maturity in this case, they will often rebel against reason’s dictates, favoring what “feels right.”

Put simply, virtuous emotional foundations correlate with embrace of moral beliefs. Vice-ridden emotional foundations correlate with embrace of immoral beliefs.

So, in essence, P.J. O’Rourke was correct. People who become leftists generally didn’t develop that emotional attachment to virtue; virtue was not cultivated in them. They are consequently adults with a somewhat infantile sense of virtue.

How does this relate to intolerance? Well, just consider how dogmatic a child can be upon glomming onto a political belief. (Think here of a young Greta Thunberg: “How dare you!”) Much as whenever a babe doesn’t get his way, he can become enraged when others defy what he sees as axiomatic.

Leftists exhibit, too, the worst of both worlds. When Jesus said that to enter Heaven you must “become as little children,” He was alluding to innocence. But being childish but not childlike, the people we call leftists are immature but not innocent.

I wrote “call” because such individuals will be labeled differently in other times and places. Also note that what’s at issue is a matter of degree. Not all leftists will be raging “Karens,” just as not all “conservatives” will be fonts of virtue. But there’s no question as to how little barbarians grow into big ones — and as to how, generally, they vote.