It is hard to imagine a better encapsulation of Congress’ pathetic lack of seriousness and self-respect than the rushed passage last week, without a single Democratic vote, of the officially titled “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Other than the blowout funding for border security and permanently extending expiring tax cuts, there is little else in the sprawling legislation that was at the top of the policy wishlist for most Americans—or, for that matter, most Republicans.

Add trillions to the runaway national debt—and with it, the trade deficit? 

End health insurance coverage for millions of low-income households?

Increase monthly payments for outstanding student loans? 

End subsidies for electric cars and cheap new sources of clean energy for an over-stretched electric grid?

Reduce food stamps and school lunches for poor kids? 

Prevent Medicare from negotiating lower prices for certain drugs?

Increase the exemption on the estate tax to $30 million per couple? 

Reopen a tax loophole that encourages multinationals that transfer jobs and intellectual property to tax havens? 

Provide a new tax break for those who buy cars on credit but not with cash? 

Expand the tax break to those rich enough to pay $40,000 a year in state and local taxes?

Repeal the tax on gun silencers?

The only logic to this dog’s breakfast of a bill was undoing everything Democrats had done and rewarding special interests for their support in the last election. In the end, the argument that brought around dozens of reluctant Republicans wasn’t that it was about good policy. It was simply about winning.

Could there be anything more pathetic than Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who had the power to stop it dead in its tracks, acknowledging that she had sold out the citizens of the other 49 states after winning a few paltry carve-outs for Alaska — and then pleading with the House to put things right.

Or Missouri’s Josh Hawley, who was all “hell, no” to robbing working class voters of their Medicaid until he wasn’t, offering up a lame promise “to do everything in my power to reverse future cuts to Medicaid.”

Or how about those debt-obsessed members of the House Freedom Caucus who, once again, proved themselves to be all hat and no cattle.

The one profile in courage, Sen. Thom Tillis, stood his ground on the Medicaid cuts and voted no, only to undercut his own message by caving to President Donald Trump’s threats of a primary challenge and declaring he wouldn’t be running for reelection in 2026 after all.

Tillis has such little faith in North Carolina voters that he didn’t even give himself the chance to make the case for his candor and courage, or consider running as an independent in a three-way race that he would have had a decent chance of winning.

And what of Democrats in all this?

Try this little thought experiment:

Imagine you are a Democrat in the House or Senate and you had an opportunity to make this terrible bill significantly less bad for the people you profess to care about — less new debt, no food stamp cuts, a less onerous Medicare work requirement and burdensome rules for Obamacare, fewer tax breaks for the rich and big corporations.

But what if doing so would require you to work with Murkowski, Tillis, Hawley and Republicans with similar concerns and vote for an alternative that contained other stuff you didn’t like. Would you do it?

What we know is that any Democrat who might have pursued such a deal would have been given the same treatment as the Republicans who threatened to break with their party leaders and caucus. And, no surprise, none tried. But how is that any less disappointing in terms of political courage or principled leadership than Murkowski, Hawley, Tillis and the alleged debt hawks of the Freedom Caucus? 

And there’s the problem. In the midst of a political blood feud, when people who know better and have the power to make things better aren’t willing to risk being criticized and ostracized or maybe lose their jobs, what you get is “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

What would it take to prevent it from happening again? It would require a dozen members from both parties in both chambers to commit themselves now—in advance, when the political stakes are low—to a handful of commonsense, partisan-neutral principles that they will abide by no matter what the issue or which party is in the majority. 

No giant packages dealing with dozens of unrelated issues released and voted on at the last minute. 

No major legislation without serious committee hearings and public deliberation.

No major legislation without the opportunity to debate and vote on bipartisan amendments with significant bipartisan support. 

No “budget reconciliations” that increase deficits rather than reduce them. 

Yes, I know, process is boring. But unless you believe that members of Congress are going to suddenly discover their inner Henry Clays and Daniel Websters, the only hope of changing legislative outcomes is to change the legislative process that produces them.