PARIS LETTER
really a statesman, except in the classical sense of a man who wants to
make new fundamental laws. Still, he is the only man who can keep
France united while operating a series of drastic but inevitable changes."
"What about the social program of the RPF?" I asked.
"Frankly, all I can say is that we are trying to have one," was the
answer, "and it is not an easy job. There are too many oldfashioned con–
servatives among us.
If
only the Socialists could understand that the
choice is between us and the CP. But all they do is to
be
afraid that if
they don't call us fascists the Stalinists will call them "social traitors,"
which they do anyway. Hence, in spite of the great influence of such
men as Soustelle, Vallon, and Malraux, the left wing of the RPF remains
rather weak.
If
you want to know what I personally think, I can tell you
that I am a Gaullist because I think that Gaullism is a chance for con–
servatism. By conservatism, I mean a principle of government which al–
lows for specific progress, and definite changes. At the opposite pole there
is the ideology of Revolution, which is that of the Communists, namely
the will to seize power in order to change everything. Since I don't be–
lieve in changing "everything," and since I don't see any force in France
today, capable of introducing the partial reforms that are needed, ex–
cept the RPF, I am with the RPF. I don't expect any miracles. What
I expect is a minimum of rationality and realism, more especially I ex–
pect De Gaulle to give us a State which will be strong and limited,
instead of being both impotent and omnipresent, like the one we have
today. As for the rest, I am an oldfashioned liberal. Only, I think that
today civil liberties cannot be saved except through a period of emer–
gency powers. Even if De Gaulle should establish a kind of dicta_torship,
it
would only last a couple of years. In any case, De Gaulle will do no
worse than the Third Force."
"Do you feel confident of it?" I asked.
"Not quite, I must say," answered this intellectual, "but the risk
must be taken, since we have no choice."
So, here was a man who had joined a movement which claims to
stand for nothing if not for "energy, clarity, and firmness of purpose,"
and who at the same time was aware that 1) the leader of the move–
ment is a symbol rather than a political man; 2) the movement itself
gives no guarantee as to the direction it may take, and has no program on
the crucial issue of the day, which happens to be also the one on which
the enemy (i.e., the Stalinists) is strongest; 3) the whole enterprise, if
successful, might have no better effects than the ones that are being
denounced as the worst imaginable. Only in France, I felt, the will not
to be a dupe can play such tricks.
1009
