The Meaning of the State

"Go to the Radical Party. It is there that you will find the last vestiges of the meaning of the state."
-Charles de Gaulle.

I recently completed reading a biography of Charles de Gaulle, which was just published last year. One of the things that I found fascinating about de Gaulle was that he always had a very exalted view of the state. Now de Gaulle was a traditional Catholic monarchist, like most of the French military in the early twentieth century. France at that time was governed by the Third French Republic, and most French politicians at that time were anticlerical republicans. This put them at odds with the so-called "Jesuit generals," traditional Catholic monarchists in the French military who had been educated mainly in Jesuit schools in their youth. Consequently both sides were often set against each other over the different political issues of the day, most notably the explosive Dreyfus Affair. The two groups began a rapprochement during World War I, when they were forced to work together for the common good of France when the country was invaded and partially occupied by the Germans. After the war, the effect of these different groups working together was that Church and state in France, which had been officially separated in 1905, reached a bearable coexistence.

Given that de Gaulle was a Catholic monarchist who lived in France when it was already under a secular and anticlerical republic, it may seem peculiar that he would have such a high view of the authority of the state. It might seem equally strange that the French military in those days would have been mostly composed of Catholic monarchists. This meant that the French military would be put in the place of defending the secular and anticlerical republic that governed the country in the event of a war, which is exactly what happened when World War I began. But for de Gaulle, if not also for the other Catholic monarchists in the French military at that time, it is possible to separate the state as such from both the constitution of the state and the politicians who work within the context of that constitution. The state is the highest temporal authority in a human society, charged with upholding the common good of all of the people in the society. The constitution is the form of the state itself. One may have different views about the nature of a given state's constitution, or about the nature of political constitutions in general. But this does not have to reflect upon the position of the state itself.

Like de Gaulle, I am also a traditional Catholic monarchist. I recognize that the state has an obligation to legally recognize the Catholic Church as the official religion of the state and form its laws accordingly. I also believe that monarchy is the best political constitution for a temporal state. Consequently, these beliefs put me in an awkward position, living in a time and place where secular republicanism is the order of the day. The 1789 U.S. constitution is, in my view, an especially flawed document in many ways. I absolutely abhor the American civic religion, which among other things regards the constitution as its most important civil sacrament. Unlike most people in the United States, including many Catholic clergy, I refuse to give to the constitution a respect and honor that I consider to be not only misplaced, but in the American case, even idolatrous at times.

Despite my intense dislike of the 1789 U.S. constitution and the beliefs reflected in it, I can nevertheless recognize that the state in general, even if it takes the form of a deficient constitution, is itself worthy of respect and honor. Following Francisco Suárez, the constitution of the state takes its authority from God through the people of the society itself. All power, even civil power, ultimately comes from God; but in the case of political constitutions, it comes through the individual people in the society. Since men cannot survive on their own, they come together to form societies for their common benefit. The state is formed as the institution that they choose to govern them for their common benefit, and the constitution is the form that the state takes. Hence the constitution expresses the common will of the people in the society as to how they can work together for their common good. The common good is greater than the individual good, since it is the good for a greater number of people. As the common good is greater than the individual good, the individual man in the state must subject himself to the authority of the constitution of the state even if he may disagree with its nature. This applies to people like me, or anyone else who may live under a political constitution that he does not support.

While the benefit of a particular constitution to a society is one matter, this does not detract from the legitimate authority of the state itself as the institution responsible for working for the common good of the whole. The state is necessary as the organization of any society. If there is not some kind of order among men, they cannot effectively work for the good, either the common good or their own individual good. Regardless of the nature of the political constitution of the state, the state itself is a positive good for society, and thus deserves the respect and honor of the people in the society who depend upon it for their own benefit. This is also likewise distinct from giving respect and honor to the politicians working in the constitution. Like many or even most people in contemporary Western society, I find politicians to be a disgusting bunch of people. I do not respect and honor the politicians working in the constitution of the state any more than I do the constitution itself. But this is different from the role of the state as such. People can approve or disapprove more or less of the constitution or the politicians that operate within it, but the state is largely another matter.

Charles de Gaulle's views about the role of the state are also in accord with the views of most ancient and medieval philosophers. While different political constitutions might be good or bad, the state itself is, by definition, an institution that is always good. It exists for the common benefit of all of the people in the society. There is a sense in which the ancient and medieval philosophers also referred to the state as a perfect institution. The perfect lacks nothing that is possible to it as what it is. Since the state is the organization of the whole society, and men cannot survive on their own, the society is self-sufficient in the way that an individual man is not. This is the sense in which the society is a perfect thing. The state organizes the society in a way to enable it to be as self-sufficient as possible. This is how the state in its own way is a perfect institution. As the state, by definition, it always good, and in some sense even a perfect thing, it ought to receive the respect and honor of the people in the society. The Church is higher and more important in human life than the state; but the state serves a necessary and positive purpose as well.

The nature of the state as a necessary and positive good is too often overlooked in modern society. Both the contemporary right and left have their issues with the state. The right is hostile to the state because they see it in opposition to the free market, which they falsely consider to be infallible. And while the left does not have these same issues with the state, they have issues with authority in general; and the state by nature is an authoritative institution. In one sense this disregard for the authority of the state is part of the greater moral decay in Western countries. The Church has long said that giving the proper respect to civil authorities falls under the broader interpretation of the fourth commandment, to honor one's father and mother. This precept means that men need to respect legitimate authority, and thus recognize the ways that they depend upon it for their own good. The disregard for the authority of the state falls in with the infantile spirit of rebellion that we find on the left; and with the callous capitalist materialism that we find on the right. Both sides in their own way disregard a moral imperative that is as old as human society itself. While the moral imperative to obey legitimate authority is contained even in the Decalogue, it is of course much broader than that. It is not always, or even strictly, a religious obligation. It is a moral obligation that can be found across different religions and ethical systems. That the state is so disregarded by contemporary people is thus another unfortunate sign of contemporary Western moral degeneracy.

And as I said, to give respect and honor to the state does not have to mean that you necessarily approve of its constitution, still less of the politicians and others that operate within that context. The state can be understood as something different from and broader than both of those things. This was certainly de Gaulle's concern when he told his political associates to go to the Radical Party. While de Gaulle was himself a Catholic monarchist, and the Radical Party was anticlerical and republican, de Gaulle believed it was necessary for his associates to join the Radical Party because the Radical Party was the closest thing that France had to a party of government during the second half of the Third French Republic. That is why he told them that it was there that they would find the last vestiges of the meaning of the state.