In what should be a surprise to absolutely no one, WaPo reports that protection of endangered species has become substantially harder under the Bush Administration’s “big bid’ness always wins” philosophy and policies. As centuries of civil rights and human rights law are thrown under the bus in the interest of “protecting us” from swarthy A-rabs, so it seems that decades of environmental protection doctrine must also take a back seat to the interests of the privileged few making some more cash (cash that can, in a Holy alliance, be returned to Republican coffers as campaign contributions).

I have recently come up with a reasonably unified theory of everything (to put my appropriately self-aggrandizing hyperbole in its proper perspective!) That, of course, is that with our society’s creation of the corporation as a legal entity with full rights of “personhood,” we have unleashed the ability to amass wealth and productivity in realms heretofore unimagined. Simultaneously, and much more ominously, we have separated personal action from accountability for the consequences of actions taken by the corporate entity. And this is not merely in the sense and realm of just legal liability, but as George Lakoff (whom I interviewed, here) suggests, this is a fundamental difference in how “liberals” and “conservatives” view the world. Specifically, “liberals” view their own actions in a “systems” concept: individual actions may well be merged into broader actions, but the individual actions have consequences. “Conservatives” take the opposite view: unless their individual actions have immediate and recognizable consequences, than they have no consequences at all. The latter view is especially troubling when trying to measure individual actions as, say, causing environmental problems, or any other tragedy of the commons scenario.

Which takes us back to… endangered species. Some of us feel that it would be an inconceivable crime against our own descendants if we had the opportunity to save animals and/or plants that have been here since time immemorial so that our children and their children can have the benefit of those species, and squandered it. Others… just see irritating birds or bugs or lizards or weeds that get in the way of that cool resort or factory or other cash-machine, as the case may be.

The Bush Administration has made it clear which side of that “argument” it sits on. In this case, as in many others, “compassionate conservatism” has little to do with “conserving” anything, save the opportunity for a selected few to make a great deal of money. Time will tell just how much damage this has already caused, and how much of it can be alleviated.