Amazingly, even liberal journalists are now presuming that Obama’s appointment of attorney Scott Matheson signals that a deal has been struck with his Congressman brother to reverse his previous votes and support the health care bill, whatever its current form may be. And they are saying that this is hardly sinister, as such deals are commonplace in the rough-and-tumble, amoral world of politics.

Deals like this one, if that’s what it is, are not commonplace. Not when the object is a major systemic overhaul costing billions, not when so much of the public is dubious about it, not when the legislation is so complex that almost nobody completely understands it and definitely not after previous efforts to buy votes–as in the “Louisiana Purchase” and Ben Nelson’s extortion—caused so much public revulsion that they swept a Republican into a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts. Nobody knows what unsavory back-room tactics L.B.J. used to get the civil rights legislation passed, but that’s the point: you don’t mind the little piece of rat in your sausage if you’re not certain it’s there. Today, these deals are out in the open. The whole point to transparency, which Obama championed in his campaign to such an extent that it has become an albatross, is that it stops sleazy deals. Did Obama really think that the use of slimy, back-room tactics would be less offensive in the parlor?

If this really was a deal, the astounding answer must be yes, and that means, sadly, that the President and his merry band are frightening incompetent, however fine their aspirations. For doing this out in the open…

• Makes it clear that Jim Matheson will trade his principles and his constituency’s interests for a personal, family benefit. This is infinitely worse that Sen. Nelson and Sen. Landrieu trading their votes for money coming into their states. It’s closer ethically to Rod Blagojevich selling his Senate appointment.

• Makes it look like Obama is willing to trade the integrity of the judiciary for one bill because he has staked his administration on it.

• Makes Scott Matheson look like a weasel, or at least like Roland Burris, or Harriet Miers, Bush’s unqualified Supreme Court nominee. Who would want to get a high judicial appointment that the world knows only came his way because his brother sold his integrity for it? What kind of a judge would such a man be? I wouldn’t trust him. He shouldn’t be trusted.

• Actually increases the likelihood that Jim Matheson won’t change his vote, even if he was inclined to do so legitimately. Now a “yes” vote taints his brother’s nomination and makes Jim Matheson look like a crook. He can argue forever that, like the cynical House Ethics Committee report exonerating the PMA seven laughably stated, the receipt of a prior benefit didn’t effect his judgment, but nobody will believe it. Of course, double-crossing the President of the United States by reneging on a deal doesn’t make Matheson look very good either. The appointment puts him in a lose-lose bind. Poor Matheson. He will look bad whatever he does. The good news: If you are going to he hung anyway, you might as well do the honorable thing. We shall see.

• Further erodes respect and trust in the government as well as increasing cynicism regarding our leaders and the democratic process.

If it really is a vote-selling  deal, the disturbing ethical reality will be that we are in full, unrestrained utilitarian mode, when that ethical system is at its most dangerous. If President Obama is willing to sacrifice the integrity of the judiciary, his own reputation for honesty and fairness, the careers of multiple public officials, the trust and faith of the majority of the public and the belief in a principled democracy to pass health care legislation, then he has concluded that this end justifies any means. That is the same mindset that led the last Administration to abandon core American principles and use the cruel devices of despots, zealots and monsters—torture—because American security was “everything,” and justified any means to preserve it. History teaches that we must always fear power whenever it determines that achieving a single goal justifies the sacrifice of principle.

I still believe that it is possible that no back-room deal was struck. But if everyone believes that it was, the reality won’t matter.