Why "faced" not "face"? [duplicate]

Could you please help me understand why the verb "face" is used in the past, in the following sentence, not in the present although the first part of the sentence is describing a future situation?

The sentence is : "You’re never going to run in the Olympics. It’s time you faced (up to) the facts."

Appreciate you help.

Solution 1:

• Common usage in English after: It's time [that] [etc.]

• It's time he left for work. It's time you went to bed**.

• It's time we shut up. [ha ha, invariable]

• It's time Little Johnny did his homework.

• What pattern emerges?

The pattern is that the phrase is commonly followed by a second clause (a relative clause) but not really a protasis (dependent clause), as what comes after the phrase can stand on it own and is comprised of a subject + simple past + [the rest of the clause].

So, returning to the question:

• It's [high] time he faced up to something.

It follows the pattern perfectly. And there is no subjunctive heffalump in sight.

(I am sure there are more go-getting grammarians who might want to give this a go. :))

And without pursuing this too far, it is worth mentioning that other dummy-type phrases such as: It's silly, It's funny, It's nonsense, also are followed by a simple past in the second clause.

• It's silly [that] he insisted on that.
• It's nonsense [that] he left us in the dark.
• It's tragic[that] they went on that hike.

That brings us to the fact that a dummy subject followed by adjectives in the predicate or even some nouns can follow this pattern.