You've gotta love the consistent inconsistency employed in jOuRnAliSm these days.

Yes, an editor for the L.A. Times wrote completely dissenting opinion pieces on the Senate filibuster only two years apart.

This was from 2019:

And this was from last week:

What changed, you may ask?

Why, Democrats got stuck with a 50/50 split in the Senate and are chomping at the bit to destroy that thing called the Constitution before those pouncing Republicans can strike back in the 2022 election!

Editor Jon Healey pointed out in 2019 how top Democrats were itching to get rid of the filibuster if they won the 2020 election, arguing that it's outdated and undemocratic.

But Jon had this to say:

The best arguments for killing the filibuster are that it's undemocratic and that it has been transformed from a rarely used tool to force compromises into a quotidien implement of obstruction. Both of those points are valid, yet the Senate is undemocratic and inefficient by design. Less populous states hold disproportionate power, given that the four senators from Idaho and Wyoming have as many votes as the four from California and New York.

The Founders' intent was for the House to channel the passions of the electorate and for the Senate to cool them through a more deliberate process. The salutory effect of the filibuster is that it promotes legislation that has at least some bipartisan buy-in. Without that, you end up with embattled initiatives like the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans feel free to undermine because none of them voted for it.

Those are actually some wise words. This was the Founders' intent, because they knew that something like the modern Democrat's notion of straight-majority rule would be utterly disastrous for any nation.

Healey said that nixing the filibuster would "simply make federal law and policy more volatile, with statutes and regulations being whipsawed by each change in control of Congress."

He then ends with this:

Lawmakers seem to be moving in only one direction on the filibuster, and it's not the right one.

Now let's turn over to Jon Healey two years later:

I've been one of the few members of this newspaper's editorial board who argued in defense of the filibuster, which was itself a lonely and doomed effort, given the board's oft-stated position that the filibuster was unacceptably undemocratic.

I've come around on that.

You've gotta love it. It's okay for someone to develop their opinions, but call me a bit skeptical when you literally called people "crazy" for wanting to end the filibuster two years ago, but now that the Democrats have real, dangerous power in their hands, you're suddenly onboard with letting them go full Emperor Palpatine.

Remember how in 2019, Healey said it was more important to "cool" the "passions of the electorate" in the Senate through processes like the filibuster?

Well, 2021 Healey thinks it's time to get the pipes unstuck in Washington, even if we all end up waist-deep in yuck.

When you think about it, the filibuster isn't protecting bipartisanship in the Senate. It's protecting lawmakers from having to take a stand on divisive issues. If the Senate minority can no longer stop the majority from even bringing up bills, they'll be in the position that the minority in the House is in, having to choose between trying to score political points and engaging with the majority on the legislation it's moving.

And yes, some policies may end up swinging like a pendulum. But at least Congress will get off the sidelines.

I'd say that filibustering is actually the specific tool that the minority party has to ensure something like – oh, I don't know – trillions of dollars on "stimulus" and "infrastructure" packages don't get rammed through without a serious whittling down of the pork and barrel.

I'd love to see Jon Healey's opinions on the Cold War back in the 1970s.

"Yes, some cities may end up being nuked back and forth like a pendulum. But at least the U.S. and Russia will get off the sidelines."

Sometimes, political stalemates are a way of saying the country is in a cold war of its own, and that we need to slow down to resolve the issues as a society without the dunderheads in Washington ramming legislation down everyone's throats that ignites actual conflict.

But what do I know? I'm just a person with regular common sense and a worldview that stays consistent regardless of which political party is in power. Not all of us can be editors at the L.A. Times, after all!

* * *

P.S. While you're here, watch our newest video showing gaffemaster Joe Biden's "most profound and inspirational quotes" 😂: