What seems ages ago, I posted a rather flippant commentary on health care reform, and said it was all I wanted for Christmas. Of course the current bill of the moment is nothing like what I suggested, but it is on schedule for delivery before the holiday (at least the Senate’s side of it.)

What I wished for was beyond idealistic, since it essentially required that lawmakers tell the lobbyists where to go, and just keep the best interests of the public in mind. Worse than repaying special interest groups for campaign contributions with votes on the floor, we’ve moved on to buying votes on the floor with specific earmarks in legislation. Calling pork belly spending necessary concessions to pass landmark legislation, or how business is done in Washington should have been at least a little alarming, but at this point all concerned seem to have become accustomed to this way of thinking. If anything, instead of complaining about it for being done at all, it has become more like a group of children at the dinner table claiming that someone else got the bigger piece of cake.

Sure, Ezra Klein is right that the current offering is strikingly similar to Obama’s campaign promises. The other shoe that hasn’t dropped (and probably never will) is the observation that campaign promises by their nature are meant to win votes – not be implemented. Tell the people what they want to hear on the campaign trail, but deal with the reality of the situation once you’re in office, right?

And then there is the general nastiness. Whether it’s complaints about wording on abortion or implying that the world would be a better place if at least one of the Senators was no longer with us, we’ve been given quite a show. I place the abortion complaints on the same level as the not-so-veiled statements on vote counts simply because they play on the same public emotions. Even the media joined in when Paul Krugman was requested to clarify his statement about burning Lieberman in effigy. For the record, and the benefit of presumptuous, pandering editors everywhere:

Burning in Effigy – Symbolically. For example, That umpire was completely unfair let’s burn him in effigy. Now used only figuratively, this term formerly signified a way of carrying out the sentence of a criminal who had escaped, such as burn in effigy or hang in effigy. A dummy was made of the criminal or a detested political figure and subjected to the prescribed punishment. [c. 1600] (emphasis added)

As for creating history, the best that this administration and this Congress can hope for is a very forgiving (and forgetful) group of historians. We have been shown the best of political maneuvering, bartering, bribery, and general malfeasance through the process so far. If this is any indication of what is to come, there is no doubt that there will be a fresh new crop of political shenanigans in the coming months when the House has its turn. We can hope that it doesn’t turn into a game of limbo, but it’s more likely that we’ll see just how low they can go.

But it will all be worth it in the end, right? We’ll end up with a minimally serviceable piece of legislation that will give everything but the kitchen sink to the politicians, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and every other special interest group connected to health care. It’s a cynical view, but unfortunately, it probably is not very far from the truth. The signs are already there – Reid has already started referring to this as a stepping stone. Sweeping change and landmark legislation isn’t rushed – unless results are not the primary concern. They aren’t. It has been a matter of political survival for quite some time now. The goal has been to pass “something” as opposed to “something that works” for some time now. If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be talk of concessions for the sake of numbers.

And unfortunately, the public and the press are buying what they’re selling. “Something” is better than “nothing”, right?