The Volokh Conspiracy doesn't like a lot of articles on Slate, and makes no bones about it. Now they point to a critique of Ari Fleischer's memoir and are bashing it pretty well. Eugene mostly bashes the critique for taking quotes out of context, and not revealing that portions of quotes are actually not Ari's quotes, but quotes from other sources he included in the memoir. I on the other hand want to hit one particular point hard:

In his new book, Taking Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House, Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary, lays out various "biases and predilections" of "the liberal press." Among these is its 'belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems," its insistence that "emotional examples of suffering ... are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories," and its tendency to stay "fixated on the unemployment rate." Fleischer might just as well have complained that the press believes the Earth revolves around the sun.

At risk of belaboring the obvious:

1. If the government doesn't exist to solve problems, what the hell do we have it for? We can argue about the particular problems government should solve, and about how successfully government addresses them at any given time, but not, I think, about whether government should be in the problem-solving business.

Hate to break it to you Mr. Noah, but it's not obvious that the government exists to solve problems. I can solve my own problems thanks, and would rather the government keep its nose out of my business. The government exists to protect our country from invasion, and to enforce basic rules (we call them laws) that we as a society have decided to live by. People solve problems, not governments. The very fact that we can't agree how to solve many problems is the very reason why government shouldn't be doing it at all. It's something we call competition. People who think that solution A is the best way to solve the problem would donate money to the Foundation for Solution A. People who think that solution B is better, would likely donate to the Foundation for Solution B. People who wanted A-Type help would go to that foundation, and likewise for B. If A ended up not working for anyone, it would quietly fade away into nothingness while B would continue to grow.

What happens now? Solution A ends up sucking... but the government just keeps tossing money at that solution because it's the one "we" decided on. At the same time, B would never have come into existence because once the government creates a solution, it practically makes it impossible for any other to come into being.

There was a time when people never went to the government for help. They went to their neighbors, their family, their churches... they got support from people... from their communities. There is nothing wrong with that. It's directed and personal support, and it's a hell of a lot more efficient and helpful than some nameless check that might come in the mail. People who get directed support are much more likely to actually solve their problem and not need support any more. People who only get government help might get their symptoms treated, but tend to get addicted to that help, and never get off it.

Now then, I'm not saying that certain solutions aren't best implemented by a government, but that should be a last resort, not a first. It should only be done this way when no private group could do it. Of course, the more you examine the bureaucracy and corruption in government, the more you should see that there are very few tasks which the government is better at doing.

Reagan put it best when he said:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."