I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day, and he was talking about some scientific study that purportedly showed that Global Warming had nothing to do with the origin or intensity of Hurricane Katrina.

I used to like to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Originally, it was a “know thine enemy” type of thing. In some cases, I agreed with him, or, more frequently, disagreed with his overall conclusions while agreeing with one or two specific points along the way. I found intriguing the mechanism and ease with which you can “win” a “debate” if you can control the way it’s framed. In part, I was laughing at the “ditto-heads” and particularly enjoyed it when Rush was forced to correct one of his loyal followers while trying not to alienate or offend him. And, finally, I sensed (right or wrong) that at least a good portion of the show was likely just entertainment and that the host probably had little deep-seeded allegiance to most of his positions.

But it got old.

Particularly when George W. Bush was elected and the Republicans were squarely in control of all three branches of government, it was hard to swallow his indignation about the Democrats’ feeble attempts to muster some semblance of credible dissent.

It’s like the Neighborhood Bully whining and complaining about the Class Nerd.

But even when I liked the Rush Limbaugh Show, one thing that always bothered me was when he talked about the environment. Because it’s very easy for people to be lazy about stuff like that. It takes a lot to motivate the masses to action where (as my friend Russell Jaffe once put it) only the cumulative effects are visible. So all people need to hear are some purported results from some purported study blessed by Rush Limbaugh, or whoever, and that will serve as the excuse for thousands to rationalize and fall back upon their natural inclinations.

Based on this recent study, we are supposed to conclude, I guess, what? Bush and the Republicans and Big Oil did not cause Katrina?

Or that Global Warming is itself a great big hoax?

A liberal, Democratic, Commie, pinko, tree-hugging, femi-nazi plot to trick everyone into needlessly conserving resources, minimizing pollution, and searching for alternative sources of energy?

The goal of which is to, what?

Bring down the economy?

Save the spotted owl?

One time years ago I distinctly remember Rush Limbaugh talking about “liberals” as pessimists. "They have no faith in the regenerative powers of the Earth."

Probably stuck with me because it’s the exact opposite of what you are taught in any basic college course on Government or Philosophy.

Note, for example, the etymology: “Conserve” energy. “Conservation” of environmental resources. “Conservative.”

Don’t trust Human Nature. Don’t let greed, unchecked, run amuck. Maintain the status quo.

Democrats, hence, not Republicans, are, at least with respect to this issue, generally conservative.

Sure, eventually, over hundreds of millions of years, we have a liberal and optimistic hope and faith in the regenerative powers of the Earth.

But, in the meantime, why wouldn’t we apply Pascal’s Wager (if not Occam’s Razor) to something like world-wide environmental changes which are difficult to measure, and assume that we just might be hurting the environment irrevocably and, perhaps, catastrophically, and therefore wager on a little bit of conservation?

I guess, for Limbaugh, the immediate interests of the petro-chemical companies are more compelling?

Executive pay? Stock prices? SUV sales? Dividends? Portfolios?

It’s simply one more piece of evidence that the prevailing form of Republicanism has little or nothing to do with liberal or conservative philosophy.

It’s about one thing and one thing only: Big Business.

How, for example, does their environmental policy square with all of the slogans about Personal Responsibility?

We get happy and wealthy and fat off the land, and then leave the mess behind for future generations.

Does that sound responsible?

Would you call that Personal Responsibility or Corporate Responsibility? Good Government, perhaps?

Even if Global Warming is a hoax.

Isn’t the only responsible path to employ just a little bit of self-sacrifice and restraint?

Isn't there a way, without bringing the economy to a screeching halt, to make a little bit of a responsible effort to conserve, to protect, to preserve, to clean up after ourselves, and try not to make too much of a mess in the first place?



[Note - The views expressed on this political blog and law blog are the personal views of Steve Herman and are not intended to represent the views of Herman Herman Katz & Cotlar, LTLA, TLPJ, the Civil Justice Foundation, or any other organization.]

Yes, undoubtedly, conservative Republicans are largely to blame for the steady decline of our environment. In the interest of “trickle down” economics, they consistently act to the benefit of large businesses, loosening environmental regulations and making it easier to dump waste into our water; bury chemicals into our soil; release pollution into our air. But the shift to the right side of the political spectrum is not confined to congress; the American people are shifting, too. As a nation, we are not environmentally conscious. As a nation, we allow for the destruction of our world and the depletion of our resources. And, as a nation, we cannot legitimately claim either ignorance or coercion. The growing influence of the Religious Right is an indication of a deeper, subtler problem. This devil-may-care attitude toward the environment is not just about the environment. It is about our nation's decent into self-indulgence and narcissism, and before we can make any improvements, we are going to have to take a long, hard look at who we really are.