In the July 18 editorial "Tyranny of a Minority: Despite the 'Deal' the Senate Filibuster Lives" the PG editorial board balked at the "lack of democratic process" in the Senate and wrote "What needed to be done instead was the so-called 'nuclear option' " in regard to the filibuster. It took about two minutes on the PG's archives to retrieve an April 7, 2005, editorial "No Nukes: To End the Filibuster Would be a Huge Mistake." I think it would be worth juxtaposing what the editorial board believed now and then.
In 2005 the PG wrote that "In the American system of checks and balances, the filibuster occupies an important position. It is a 200-year-old Senate tradition that has allowed a minority to apply a brake on majority rule." But in 2013 it wrote that "Americans, however, have been drinking from this tepid, stagnant saucer for too long."
In 2005 the PG asked, "Why would Republicans contemplate changing a Senate rule to set aside a practice that has served the republic well since its earliest years?" But in 2013 it stated "to oppose the practice of straightforward democracy in the upper chamber of Congress is a curious position." In 2005 the PG called the idea of abolishing the filibuster "hubris," but now defending the filibuster is an "absurdity."
What's with the change of heart? Is it an evolution of political philosophy or a matter of political convenience? The only change I can surmise between 2005 and 2013 is which party controls the Senate. I could respect an opinion I disagreed with as long as it was consistent, but reading opinions that sway like reeds in the wind makes me question the intellectual honesty of what I read on the opinion page.
KYLE D. YAKOPOVICH