The Weak, the Strong, and the Duty of Government

Years ago (decades really) I read a book that discussed the purpose of government. I don’t remember the name of the book or the author, but one idea it contained has always stuck with me. It said that a core purpose of government is to protect the weak from the strong.

I suppose if the author were asked to carry that concept forward, he might also say that a core purpose of government is to protect the poor from the rich and the marginalized from the privileged. Such an understanding not only reflects Enlightenment principles that informed America’s founders and shaped our Constitution, but it also mirrors the values set out in familiar religious texts and traditions.

Those principles and values are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. America’s founders sought to create a central government that was strong enough to keep the Union together and repel invasions by foreign nations, but not so strong that it would function as a monarchy or encroach on the states’ authority to manage their own affairs. They also wanted to ensure that the newly formed national government would not abuse its power by depriving American citizens of the individual liberties that had been deprived them by the British crown and were becoming a hallmark of a more enlightened era. To that end, they designed a Constitution that would protect the weak (the average citizen) from the strong (the government itself) or, as early 19th-century philosopher Alexis de Toqueville put it, that would protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Three years after they ratified the Constitution, the states ratified the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The idea was that, while a majority of American voters (at that time meaning white men) elect Congress and the President, and those two institutions, empowered by that voting majority, pass laws and ensure their enforcement, the majority should not be allowed to abuse their electoral power by denying rights and liberties to those in the minority. The amendments are meant to guarantee all citizens freedom from governmental intrusions into their speech and religious choices (First Amendment); from unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment); from coerced confessions and takings of property (Fifth Amendment); from being denied the opportunity to confront their accusers in criminal cases (Sixth Amendment); from being tried by a judge without a jury (Sixth and Seventh Amendments); and from cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment).

Although initially the rights afforded in these amendments did not apply to everyone, for those to whom they did apply, they did not depend on one’s wealth or station. After slavery was abolished, additional amendments extended rights to those previously excluded. Between 1865 and 1870, Congress and the states passed the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits “involuntary servitude” (a/k/a slavery); the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides for birth-right citizenship and guarantees due process and equal protection of the laws; and the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits the United States or any state from denying the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” In 1920, the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment finally enfranchised women, giving them the right to vote. All these rights, as well as the rights created through Acts of Congress (for example, the right to be free from discrimination in housing) are examples of law and government fulfilling their purpose of protecting the minority from the majority, the weak from the strong. And while, in practice, the protections they promised very often fell short, they created a new legal status for men and women who previously were left out.

Although I have at times litigated constitutional issues, I am not a civil rights attorney, a constitutional scholar, a historian, or a political scientist. So, I set out to confirm my understanding of this basic principle -- that the government is charged with protecting the weak from the strong -- by doing a simple online search.

I wasn’t disappointed. Among other gems, I found this one: “The government exists to protect our natural rights and has a duty to protect the weak from the strong.”

My understanding was confirmed. but who was doing the confirming? You might guess it was the American Civil Liberties Union or some other progressive organization. If so, you would be wrong. The organization behind that sentence is The Heritage Foundation, the conservative group that helped develop and promote Project 2025 on which much of the current Administration’s political agenda reportedly is based.

To be sure, the quoted statement doesn’t appear in a vacuum. It is set out on a Heritage Foundation webpage advocating for the right to life, the conservative position opposing abortion. Given the belief of many conservatives that a fetus is a person (and certainly a helpless one at that), it shouldn’t be surprising that a conservative organization would invoke the government’s duty to protect the weak from the strong in service of an anti-abortion mission.

But if the government has a duty to protect some who are weak, doesn’t it owe the same duty to all who are weak? Other language from the same webpage informs us that “[w]e all benefit when the law respects the dignity and value of every human life.” If we are going to protect the life, dignity, and value of the unborn, shouldn’t we be doing the same for the born? Doesn’t “every human life” include all people?

The devil, as usual, is in the details. People on both sides of the abortion debate may well agree that every human life should be protected, but disagree on what qualifies as human life. Similarly, most would likely agree that the government should protect the weak from the strong, but may disagree about who should count as weak and who should count as strong.

For example, if you believe that all migrants are armed and dangerous criminals who are coming to eat your pets, you would say that government is supposed to protect the pets and their owners (the weak) from the migrants (the strong). On the other hand, if you understand that many, perhaps most, migrants are parents fleeing violent gangs and regimes in search of safe places to work and raise their children, you might consider the migrants to be weak and the gangs and regimes they are fleeing to be strong. In that case, government should protect the fleeing migrants from those who have endangered them. And while some might argue that our government’s role is to protect its citizens but not foreigners, our court precedents, asylum laws, and basic sense of decency have often taught us otherwise. After all, our nation’s founders themselves, and all but the indigenous population today, descended from foreigners, and the earliest of them came to America as weak outcasts seeking refuge from strong government persecution.

Migrants aren’t the only ones who need protection. The same analysis can be done with other populations. One might well include farmers, teachers, nurses, retirees, and the chronically ill on one side of the weak-versus-strong equation, while placing heads of state, media moguls, and tech billionaries on the other. The government fulfills its duty by accurately and honestly distinguishing between the weak and the strong and doing what it reasonably can to protect the former from the latter.

Because there seems to be broad agreement that the government is charged with this duty, we should be able to agree to use it as a litmus test by which we judge governmental policy. Every law, court ruling, Executive Order, and governmental action for which this protect-the-weak-from-the-strong test is relevant could be evaluated in its light. If we chose to make that type of assessment a bipartisan project, we would need to commit to doing so fairly, with an honest determination of who are the weak who need protection from the strong and who are the strong from whom they need protection, all the while remaining fully cognizant that our Constitution demands that all people within our borders, not just those in the majority, receive the benefits and privileges our foundational documents afford.

Finally, when we examine policies and practices through this lens and find them wanting, we could reform them to better protect the weak and hold the responsible governmental actors to account. Only then will we have secured for ourselves and our children those elusive ideals that America has always claimed to honor — liberty and justice for all.

___________________________________

The Heritage Foundation webpage mentioned in this article can be found here: https://www.heritage.org/how-speak-life/why-should-government-protect-life