Over at The American Thinker, J.R. Dunn tells us about left-wing discontent with President Obama from the likes of Bill Maher, Frank Rich and, of course, Mark Halperin. Dunn argues that liberalism is bigger than any liberal (even Obama) and then likens the present day with the events of the Russian Revolution in 1917:
But here’s the thing: from the liberal point of view, Obama does not exist as a separate entity, but only as a momentary expression of the liberal dogma. Liberalism will still exist long after Obama is gone — or so they hope. So if it comes down to a choice between the messiah on one hand and the creed on the other, the messiah has to go. (I need scarcely point out that this is the traditional fate of messiahs — false ones in particular.)
This is why Obama has been stung so badly by such deep thinkers as Halperin, Rich, and Maher. They are performing a salvage job, assuring that there will be plenty of daylight between Obama and liberalism by the time November 2012 rolls around. We will hear a lot more of it before then, covering all of the administration’s policies, everything Obama has ever touched. It is their own version of the stab in the back legend — everything would have been fine if it hadn’t been for Obama, that centrist, that moderate, that traitor. Revolutions always eat their own — the moderate social democrat Aleksandr Kerensky was a hero in early 1917 only to flee Russia one step ahead of the Bolsheviks six months later. Obama is undergoing the same process as regards his own failed revolution.
Which leaves me with this question. If President Obama is Kerensky then who will The Left embrace as the new Lenin?