Live Q&As

Thanks. I agree that the Republicans need to think hard about where the Tea Party's ideology has led them. I still think that are quite a number of moderate conservatives who know that a balanced solution to the deficit problem will inevitably involve revenues -- yes, tax increases -- of some kind. What we should be arguing about is the right mix of cuts and revenues, and also the best ways to raise the money we need. 

Thanks for the kind words. I don't see quite the same thing happening inside the Democratic Party because the circumstances are different. The Tea Party was the product of conservatives going into the opposition and also some disillusionment with President George W. Bush. But I think Progressives are organized inside the Democratic Party through a variety of groups -- Move On, the union movement, Campaign for America's Future, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and many others --- trying to put pressure on the president from the left and also trying to push the debate leftward. I think their voices have been especially forceful in this debt debate. But whatever the left does, it won't look exactly like the Tea Party movement. Thanks again.

That's interesting, thanks, but I don't se the parallel, partly because there was still a big conservative wing inside the Democratic Party back in 1971, particular in the southern Democratic Congressional delegations. There are no Republicans willing to call themselves "liberal" and few moderates left. Yes, anti-war forces were gaining strength in '71 and they did nominate George McGovern in '72. But the Democrats were still far more diverse then than the GOP is now. Thanks again.

I think the core difficulty is that moderates began leaving the Republican primary electorate in the mid-1990s. My friend and colleague Dan Balz wrote a brilliant piece after the 1996 election showing how suburban counties in the northeast and midwest -- for example, Montgomery and nearby counties around Philadelphia -- switched from voting for Republican moderates to voting for Clinton. Many of those voters never came back to the GOP. So the party's primary electorate is far more conservative than it used to be and Republican incumbents are very afraid of primaries from the right. Think, for example, of the defeat of Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware by Christine O'Donnell. Consider that that Sen. Orrin Hatch in Utah is likely to face a conservative challenge. Hatch, of course, is very conservative. So I think many Republicans are running scared, and with reason. Thanks for your thought.

Thanks. I think the answer I gave above applies to this question, too. Republicans are worried about primaries from candidates to their right. I have heard talk of a few primaries to Tea Party members from more moderate conservatives next year, especially since Congressional districts will be reconfigured. But so far, that's just talk. We'll see if it happens.

No offense taken. Thanks for writing, and I kind of like that "concern troll" idea. But I don't think there is any facade here. I deeply, truly and openly believe that American conservatism has taken a wrong turn. I think conservatives have tossed away their more communitarian side and adopted a fairly radical form of individualism. I think it's a mistake for conservatives to define themselves only as a party that will fight tax increases. Conservatism is bigger than that. I don't hide the fact that I'm a liberal who would naturally disagree with the conservatives' position. But a while back I wrote a column on why we need a healthy conservatism that can really challenge those of us who are more progressive or liberal or whatever term you prefer. But sure, I concede that advice from liberals is not going to get conservatives to change their minds. I do hope for a robust debate inside conservatism after this debt fight is over. We'll see if it happens. Warmest wishes to you from this concern troll, and thanks again for writing in.

Yes, I know what you mean. He probably did better than I thought at the time in his last round with Boehner. Tea Party members certainly think Obama got the better of that deal, which is causing Boehner problems now. On the other hand, I wasn't wild, as you may know from my column, about the deal extending the Bush tax cut for the wealthy. This battle will be the ultimate test. I was heartened to see what the President said today. To quote the Post's story:

 “We can’t just close our deficit with spending cuts alone.” That would mean senior citizens would have to “pay a lot more for Medicare,” students would have trouble getting education loans, job training programs would be trimmed and there were be “devastating cuts” in medical and clean-energy research, he said.

So he has responded to criticism of the possibility of a deal with no revenue. But, yes, this has worried me, and I am not yet sure I'd want him to negotiate for me on a home or car purchase. But maybe this time, things will turn out better. Many thanks!

Amen, and thanks. I think the earlier writer was more interested in the Tea Party's gift for getting attention, and its electoral successes in 2010. I think, by the way, that it's important for progressives to join the battle for American history. I agree with the Tea Party that we should find inspiration from our national past. But I think they are wrong in the way they read our history. I think there is a progressive trajectory to our national story, and will be making a case for that view over the next while. Thank you!

Agree. We have enough problems. We don't need to create wholly unnecessary crises! 

My guess: Most of them don't bolt, but there might be a small movement to have a third party candidate on the right. My hunch is that the right of the GOP will concentrate on making sure its strongest supporters get re-elected, and give Romney support in passing because one of their central objective will be to defeat President Obama. Thank you.  

I don't think this is where things will go, but who knows? It's an interesting theory so I will share it with our readers. Thank you.

Perhaps Huntsman could, and Romney will try if he gets the chance. Again, we'll see. Thanks for writing.

I think I gave a kind of answer to this earlier and, unfortunately, I am running out of time. I just wanted to say thanks for your kind thoughts.

Wanted to give you your say before I go. The Tea Party did do poorly in Senate races, but they won a lot of House seats. And my criticism is based on the idea that they want a level of taxation that cannot support a size of government most Americans want and that the cuts that would be required would make us a less effective and less just country. But that's a very brief statement of a long argument -- the very argument we will be having between now and 2012. Thanks for writing. 

And thanks to all for participating today. Again, I apologize to those I couldn't reply to, but I will be doing this again. Have a great weekend!