You may like Obama, but really what is this?

[Locke4God]

"... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."


This is a quote from his own college thesis. Keep in mind this is just coming out because he would not allow anybody to look over his college material during the campaign. And even now only 10 pages have been uncovered. I just beg you to look at this and read it carefully.

Essentially it says, the Constitution is inadequate, and doesn't allow the government to take money away from people in order to give it to whoever they want. It then blatantly insults the founders, belittling them as "so called" leaders, and it insults the document itself as constraining Americans in shackles.

I ask you, as fellow Americans, what President speaks of our founding fathers and the Constitution in this way? Does it not insult you, as a proud United States Citizen, to have our highest elected leader demean our founding document and leaders?

I'm sorry, but I can't find a way to like a leader who is outright telling me that my country is a piece of poop.

[Che]

What if the founders were wrong?

Who's more patriotic:

A man who can look back at the founders and say, hey they might be wrong, we might have to change this. Things are different now and we may have to compensate.

or

A man that will stick to the original plan until the day he dies.

The answer isn't B. When you were in math class and your teacher accidentally made a mistake without realizing it, did you question him, or just think that whatever he wrote up on the board was the right thing forever and always?

As an American, who has not given up on this country yet, I think being able to look back and admit if I was right or wrong is a great thing. It's not insulting. What is insulting is to think that everything that we wrote up in 1776 was the end all be all of anything.

Slavery.

So with that, I'm not offended by what he wrote at all.

I ask you, as fellow Americans, what President speaks of our founding fathers and the Constitution in this way? Does it not insult you, as a proud United States Citizen, to have our highest elected leader demean our founding document and leaders?

I'm highly offended just reading that, as an American. (Speaking about your question, Locke)

And you never liked Obama in the first place, so what does it matter? Sorry Locke, but can you post up some of your college notes so we may find things to nitpick on with our red pens?

[RagnaToad]

I don't get it.

I can't see what's wrong with a president actually wanting to move forward and criticising something that was written over 200 years ago.

If Americans want to follow that constitution literally for ever, they're going to be even more of a joke to the rest of the world than some of them are now.

[loner-kid]

While i'm not an American citizen, or in any way affiliated with life in America, I have to say that i side with che on this one. What is it with the American people and the constitution? It's treated like some sacred text that holds total and climactic truth. I mean christ, it was written almost 250 years ago when America was facing very different issues and problems to what it faces today. The world has moved and by its very nature the constitution cannot move. Loke although many people don't want to admit it America is stagnating to a degree due to its constitution, it shouldn't be more neccesary to find loop holes that would make your law legal than to persuade the governing body of the logic and morality of how your law will help people.

And honestly do you really think that quote is a good choice for your point, in my mind it's refering more to the lack of economic freedoms of the American people than too government. The constitution, to my knowledge, lacks any kind of points to help the poorer members of America to improve their own conditions eccnomically. Obama then chooses to illustrate his point by mocking how a lack of ecconomic freedom is as bad as a lack of political freedom, and therefore the founders promise of 'the land of the free' is quite hypocritical.

ugh, stepping back for a bit. There's probably quite a few holes in my argument, feel free to point them out and mercilessly rip them to shreds, but I hope you can at least understand where I'm coming from. Besides, supplying a conclusion for discussion without showing the entirity of the arguement is just ripe for uninformed speculation, for all i know there could be various discrepensies and violent insults within the rest of his thesis... Me thinks not

[Andromeda]

It is completely within his rights to say that they are wrong. Its the freedom of speech. He is allowed to speak his mind. However, I would say it is also pretty petty to go so low as to insult and name call people. You can make an argument without doing that. It seems a little strange to use words like 'so-called' as though he is implying that someone else was the founding fathers of the nation. I'm pretty sure history states that they were ones that were. So it seems strange to say that, I wonder who he thinks founded the nation if not them. Or if he is not saying like that and just flat out meaning it as an insult then well the latter point holds.

I will saying things out of context do make it difficult to judge things as a whole. But from the clip presented it is not really that surprising. I'm considering the things he's doing these days it is all a part of his beliefs.

But I don't really think economic freedoms are something the government needs to be involved in. What it seems you are wanting from America is a socialist system, but the general populace is not in favor of a socialist system. There are certainly a lot of people wanting socialism, but considering public backlash over the things Obama has been doing people want the country the way it was before he started touching things. Every poll you find will say that the major of Americans are actually conservative and not liberals.

And it is funny that Obama speaks about freedom when just this week or last week they told Fox News that they could not attend a press pool. Thankfully, one of the other news groups stood up said Fox News goes or we all are not. Because you can't just tell the news we don't like what you report so you can't come. Freedom of the press and speech. People are starting to remember the time during Nixon, which is not a good thing for them.

[Pete]

Loner-kid and Che both bring up great points. We have amendments in the Constitution for a reason. Issues have certainly changed in the past 233 years, and so have political ideologies. That's really not the issue at hand though.

In his thesis, Obama is merely pointing out that the Constitution doesn't provide a Socialist or Communist perspective, with shared wealth and the like. I know this is totally up for interpretation, but what I see Obama saying in that quote is that because of Capitalism, most people are not as free to live the lives as they truly want to. People may become "slaves" to their jobs in order to pay the rent or to put food on the table. So, in that sense, people aren't necessarily free to just leave and go on a vacation, or quit working and just watch trash TV all day. However, technically, they are legally free to quit their jobs and do that very same thing. If anything, we're more duty bound to ourselves, our families and our lifestyles to work for and earn the things that we have.

So on one hand, no, we're not free to do whatever the hell we want, because the government is NOT going on finance our pipe dreams. HOWEVER, the government allows us the freedoms to decide that we want to quit our jobs, or that we could retire and move to Boca if we so wished. Economically, is it feasible for many? No, and that truly is a shame, but at the same time, not everyone who is rich was born with the silver spoon. If people really busted their asses and had that fabled work ethic of 233 years ago, maybe this country wouldn't be in as bad shape as everyone sees it to be.

So yes, there is a hypocrisy of sorts, but it's a self-made one, if anything. Capitalism gives us the means to become as rich as we possibly can, while hopefully doing things legally. If we become rich enough, then affording the freedoms of doing whatever we want becomes a reality. The guys working at the bottom of that food chain can't afford the same things as the CEO, but they can still start up their own companies with money they earn or borrow. On paper, they too CAN become as rich as the CEO, in time.

And to be honest, the Constitution is quite well-written. The problems only really start when people begin to interpret it differently and for different means. People will often play as stupid as possible in order to get their point across. Unfortunately, sometimes it works.

EDIT: Andro, the "so-called" is just referring to your general list of guys, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. From his point of view, the working man is probably also included in that list, but he means the traditional members listed.

[Alpha]

"... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."

What's wrong with saying "so-called". They're so-called because history has so-called them the founders. What about the Native Americans? They were sorta there first...

And the so-called founding fathers were profoundly Lockean. More Lockean than Locke for f*ck's sake. This means they championed civil and political rights for everyone (except blacks, because they didn't count as people then did they?). People were entitled to buy land and improve it, and the government was instituted to protect said property, and people's rights (except blacks, and largely, women too).

What Obama is asking, with a distinctly less Lockean perspective, is if economic rights are as important as civil and political rights. Do people have a right to a basic standard of living (such as a minimum wage)? This concept was largely beyond the so-called founding fathers (notice there's no founding mothers too), so what your constitution, by being ridiculously rigid, has set in stone some (almost archaic) ideas about what a 'free' society entails. This is regarded as free speech, small government etc etc. It's interesting to point out the Statue of Freedom (or whatever it's called) on top of the Capitol building was put in place by slaves. Thus there's some "hypocrisy". I think Obama is right on the money with his thesis.

This is a quote from his own college thesis. Keep in mind this is just coming out because he would not allow anybody to look over his college material during the campaign. And even now only 10 pages have been uncovered. I just beg you to look at this and read it carefully.

I think it's kind of obvious that he would hold the concept of economic rights close to his heart. That's what being left-of-centre is. If you couldn't see this coming then you're pretty stupid, IMO.

Essentially it says, the Constitution is inadequate, and doesn't allow the government to take money away from people in order to give it to whoever they want. It then blatantly insults the founders, belittling them as "so called" leaders, and it insults the document itself as constraining Americans in shackles.

The Constitution is:

1. Inadequate because it is old and rigid, and does not allow for any new ideas beyond the idea of 'freedom' as established by a Puritan zealot of the 1700s.
2. The constitution allows people to create their own wealth, which made sense in a sparsely populated continent twice the size of Europe with access to slave labour, but it does not allow more than a basic existence for anybody who works under a capitalist (an owner of capital, i.e. investment moniez), who gets a larger return on their investment by paying the 'factors of production' (what I would term 'people') as little as possible.
3. The leaders were so-called.
4. Very resistant to change, which makes sense, but not when situations are completely different. Change is healthy, especially after 200+ years.

I ask you, as fellow Americans, what President speaks of our founding fathers and the Constitution in this way? Does it not insult you, as a proud United States Citizen, to have our highest elected leader demean our founding document and leaders?

Not everyone here is American. I remember a comment you made in the past where you said that you didn't care what non-Americans thought about such issues. I'm sure you are aware that your country is a global hegemon, effectively able to do whatever it wishes where ever it wishes (oh yesh, except take nuclear-armed and powered ships into New Zealand waters). Your country is on the front page of my 'World' section every day, and I'm not supposed to hold an opinion? Get real.

And he isn't demeaning anything! He's questioning, and exercising his right to free speech? Is free speech somehow limited to anything except the Constitution and the so-called founding fathers?

I'm sorry, but I can't find a way to like a leader who is outright telling me that my country is a piece of poop.

Your country is a piece of poop, and that's how many (dare I say most) non-Americans perceive your country *cough*foreign policy*cough*. Not in all regards, but in many respects. Obama has an excellent reputation abroad (except for recent foreign policy failures and inaction, but this is common to all US presidents).

Edit: open the spoiler in my signature, and then open the fourth spoiler. Read it.

[Walter Sobchak]

It’s a hoax, or a satire, depending on your point of view. Joe Klein has said that he never read any part of an Obama “thesis” from his Columbia days, and that’s conclusive, as far as I’m concerned.

Faster, Please! The Obama “thesis” hoax

A report is circulating among the wingnuts that I had a peek at Barack Obama's senior thesis. It is completely false. I've never seen Obama's thesis. I have no idea where this report comes from--but I can assure you that it's complete nonsense.

Nonsense - Swampland - TIME.com

Limbaugh was, naturally, up in arms about this, calling the college-aged Obama a "little boy," and saying, "he still shares those same feelings."

Only not so much. As a bit of basic research would have shown Limbaugh, Obama didn't technically write a thesis at Columbia -- at the time, Columbia didn't really have senior theses -- though he did write a thesis-length paper. But it was on Soviet nuclear disarmament, not the Constitution.

Rush Limbaugh - Salon.com

In your attempts to be a young Rush Limbaugh, you paid no attention to reality or the consequences of a world where the rules apply. One should always try and verify things beyond what they read on a far-right website or hear on Limbaugh's show.

[Jin]

In your attempts to be a young Rush Limbaugh, you paid no attention to reality or the consequences of a world where the rules apply.

I'd say he succeeded then.

I wondered at first if his first post was sarcasm. It just seems so silly and over the top. We may have been bamboozled.

[Locke4God]

Wow. I'm just sort of saddened by your responses. So none of you place any reverence in the constitution, or for the founders? You just think it's an old outdated piece of garbage that we need to move on from? I don't know, but I'm really serious when I say that it truly makes me sad that it's a growing movement to just foresake all we've ever stood for.

I wonder, do any of you realize that countries can in fact fall? The Soviets did it recently, Rome of course, and others. There has to be a set of founding laws somewhere, something that keeps us focused, and that's what the constitution is. I mean, if we're just going to toss that in the garbage and say the founders were wrong, then why do anything? We'll just rename the country, "do whatever the hell you want Ville"

Do none of you see the value in having a founding document that states what we believe in? And do none of you see the value in sticking to those principles? After 225 years of a United States we're going to decide to throw up their hands, and say, "Yeah we've sucked all along!" Really?

[RagnaToad]

You just think it's an old outdated piece of garbage that we need to move on from?

No one said it was garbage, but I think that 'outdated' is indeed the right word.

I wonder, do any of you realize that countries can in fact fall?

If you believe that criticising an old document is going to make your country fall, I'd say thát's an insult to your own country.

I mean, if we're just going to toss that in the garbage and say the founders were wrong, then why do anything? We'll just rename the country, "do whatever the hell you want Ville"

I don't believe anyone wants to live in a country without a constitution. Or at least no one who posted in this thread.

Do none of you see the value in having a founding document that states what we believe in?

Of course I do. But that doesn't mean that every document written in the time when a country was founded has to be followed for the rest of the existence of that country. I think it's only natural to reconsider something that a bunch of rich 18th-century men wrote down, at least once in a while. It would be unhealthy not to.

After 225 years of a United States we're going to decide to throw up their hands, and say, "Yeah we've sucked all along!" Really?

I don't see where this is coming from, honestly. No one said the constitution is unnecessary. It could have been the best thing ever written in that time, but you can't ignore the fact that it's somewhat outdated.

[Jin]

Wow. I'm just sort of saddened by your responses. So none of you place any reverence in the constitution, or for the founders? You just think it's an old outdated piece of garbage that we need to move on from? I don't know, but I'm really serious when I say that it truly makes me sad that it's a growing movement to just foresake all we've ever stood for.

I wonder, do any of you realize that countries can in fact fall? The Soviets did it recently, Rome of course, and others. There has to be a set of founding laws somewhere, something that keeps us focused, and that's what the constitution is. I mean, if we're just going to toss that in the garbage and say the founders were wrong, then why do anything? We'll just rename the country, "do whatever the hell you want Ville"

Do none of you see the value in having a founding document that states what we believe in? And do none of you see the value in sticking to those principles? After 225 years of a United States we're going to decide to throw up their hands, and say, "Yeah we've sucked all along!" Really?

That proves it. He's yanking our chain.

Could you possibly exaggerate people's responses any more? No, you're probably sitting back and yucking it up, making people believe you actually think in such a way. But you can't fool me, friend. I mean, come on, the country of Rome? You'll have to do better than that.



Off topic: I like the add at the bottom of this thread. "Like Palin?"

[Che]

Wow. I'm just sort of saddened by your responses. So none of you place any reverence in the constitution, or for the founders? You just think it's an old outdated piece of garbage that we need to move on from? I don't know, but I'm really serious when I say that it truly makes me sad that it's a growing movement to just foresake all we've ever stood for.

I wonder, do any of you realize that countries can in fact fall? The Soviets did it recently, Rome of course, and others. There has to be a set of founding laws somewhere, something that keeps us focused, and that's what the constitution is. I mean, if we're just going to toss that in the garbage and say the founders were wrong, then why do anything? We'll just rename the country, "do whatever the hell you want Ville"

Do none of you see the value in having a founding document that states what we believe in? And do none of you see the value in sticking to those principles? After 225 years of a United States we're going to decide to throw up their hands, and say, "Yeah we've sucked all along!" Really?

Yes, countries do fall. And thats exactly what we'd do if we keep going down the same road and trying to do what we did so long ago. America has always been about being a rebel, and doing what you want anyway. It was about having the opportunity to decide to live life how you wanted. I don't need the constitution to tell me what I stand for. If we keep up what we've been doing, at least before this almost second great depression, we're not even going to have that opportunity. We keep funding and saving these American businesses who are thriving on the current America, which seems to mean sue everyone, rip everyone off if they'll let you, don't work any service jobs as we have Mexicans for that, and police everyone you don't agree with in the world.

What we need to do is go back, take those basic ideas, which might not actually be stated in the constitution, clean our act up, and start being the America we started to become before all this nonsense.

As much as I don't like to talk about "change", especially about Obama because I got sick of hearing it during the campaign, it really is something we need. Change isn't bad. I'm not sure if Obama is the greatest president ever, I'm not saying that. But we need to change things around, we can't be set in our old ways. That's what old people do, and then they die. We're still kids, America is not that old.

edit: Also, the constitution is way outdated. If you look at FFVII, it's my favorite Final Fantasy, but I can admit it's outdated. I can't hype it up as "the best game ever OMG buy it now", because someone who will play it for the first time after playing Final Fantasy XIII might be like "...what is this?"

[Pete]

You do realize though, that as the times change, our values and ideals must also change. That's what the amendments are for. It doesn't mean the country is going to crap, it just means that we can't live like it's 1776. Being a patriot and loving your country has nothing to do with clinging to old ideals, but rather with supporting your country and wanting it to become the best that it possibly can. Right now, we're not there. We can get there though, but we need to change, well a lot. Is Obama the right man for the job; that's not the issue. He IS the current man with the job, and that's what's important.

If you want to go purely on the original Constitution, with no amendments, then Blacks and women could not vote. Hell, blacks couldn't even use the same facilities, shit, they were slaves. You can't tell me that changes were not important. Hell, we've gone back and made 27 changes over the years. We've made amendments because the times have called for it. Court cases have also dictated what direction the government is headed. Scopes trial? Roe v. Wade? Both monumental cases in this nation's history, and both ridiculously important to where we are today.

I mean honestly, we really need to work some things out if we can't get on the same page about evolution. How can you possibly raise children to think scientifically if they refute the scientific facts laid out before them by science. Abortion is much more of a judgment call, but it's all about an individuals rights. That's a topic for another day, but Roe v. Wade established progress in this country. And that's what we need now, especially in this recession.

[Locke4God]

But the whole point of the Contitution is that it's a living document. It was made to be altered as necessary by amendment. How could that possibly be outdated? And therefore, how could the founders have been wrong?

It is not intelligent, nor witty, nor brave, to refer to the founders as "so called", nor to call the Constitution inadequate. It doesn't show some bold new vision of a better world. What is honorable, is to work within the framework they established to mold the country, not to usurp their intent and insult them for it.

Just consider it from this perspective for a moment.

What I hear is him saying, "Hey I'm better than anybody who has ever run this country, I'm smarter than them, and I can build the first Utopia. To do that, I'm going to make sure you have money for anything you need by taking it from anybody I want. If you think your salary isn't fair I'll force your employer to pay you more regardless of your value to them, and if you think a company is too big I'll degrade them and use political power to make executive decisions for them. If you have lived your life irreseponsibly by buying more than you could afford and racking up debt, I'll take more money from the people who have it, and pay off your debt for you. In that way, nobody will have to worry about anything at all, and life will be peachy."

I left out the line where he says, "I'm going to have tea with every world leader and get them to agree with me, because I'm nice, I smile big, and I'm obviously right about everything," because clearly that strategy hasn't worked.

Listen, this plan he has to make everything great just won't work. I guarantee you something like race relations will get worse, not better, because all he does is encourage everybody to feel like victims. He tells every social group he can that they've been screwed. That's not bringing people together. That's being devisive. He's the one who's angry, and boiling up tensions, but he does it with a nice smile and a smooth voice so he sounds so nice. And if a person like me says, "hey what are you doing," then I'm accused of being angry or racist. But he can say whatever as long as he uses baby tones, and then those "so-called" framers who fitted us all with shackles. Those guys shall burn!!

[RagnaToad]

If it was 'made to be altered', I have no idea what the problem here is.

What I hear is him saying

I lost interest in your post after these words.

[Che]

Same, sounds like you just don't like the guy and aren't even trying to see where he's coming from. You're trying to find a way to justify the fact that you never liked him. But don't worry, you're a cool kid if you don't like Obama.

[Pete]

I don't think he's ever said he can create a utopian environment. At the same time, this thesis, regardless of it's veracity, was written at least 20 years ago. There is no way in hell that you can say that he knew he would become President at that time. He was just stating his opinion, and presumably taking a stance on the issue.

As for calling the founders "so-called," I don't think he means it as disrespect. Yes, the traditional founding fathers did create this country. However, I would argue that every major historical figure in American history is also a founder. What about the soldiers that actually fought the battles to gain our independence? Did they not play crucial roles in order to obtain both the lands and freedom we have today? John Rockefeller is a founder of modern America. Lewis and Clark are also founders of America. Anyone who helped to make America what it is today, for better or for worse is technically a founder of this country.

I'm also not reading any of that hardcore Socialism/ Communism in that line. All he states is that a distribution of wealth is not mentioned in the Constitution. And in all honesty, it does not and should not be a part of the Constitution. A free market, Capitalist society means that you can get as rich as you desire, by providing your goods and services without government regulation. In that line of his thesis, he just mentions there is no plan for a shared wealth system. It DOES address a good question of "Why do some people have so much, while so many people have so little?" But the answer to that question should NOT lie within the confines of the Constitution.

The Constitution is pretty much the outline for how the country is run, defended and set of rules and ideals. It should NOT deal with how people make their money, or why my friend drives and Acura and I'm rocking a 91 Oldsmobile. It shouldn't dictate that we should both be driving Camrys because that would be "fair." Those who earn more can afford more. Simple as that. If you work harder than someone in order to earn more money, then that's the reward. A lazy person who didn't try in school, and didn't get a good job SHOULD NOT be mandatorily supported by his friends who all worked hard and got good paying jobs. However, Obama doesn't say any of this.

One thing that I do appreciate about Obama is that he understands and knows that credit card companies are very predatory and are ultimately assholes when it comes to interest rates at the like. I don't think that his goal of making them less predatory is a bad thing, because it really does help a lot of people. Now, are these people really the brightest for racking up thousands upon thousands across multiple cards, absolutely not, but it's not like Obama is taxing us more in order to pay off their debts. He's just making it easier for people to not get completely buried in debt, which would only further hurt the economy. Is it a safety net for stupid people, yeah, it is, but you would hope that some people would learn not to blow money they don't have.

Also, right now, the points you're making about his foreign policies aren't really pertaining to the topic at hand. What he's doing right now as President really has nothing to do with his views on the founding fathers from 20 years ago, or about how he might see a lack of a distribution of wealth as a hypocrisy.

[Walter Sobchak]

Are you going to acknowledge that you were wrong or not? The thesis is not real, a non-elaborate hoax that stupid people and professional trolls picked up and ran with. I don't understand how you can sit on your personal computer and continue to debate made up quotes, but then again someone had to make those made up quotes, so why let them go to waste, right?

We will not judge you harshly; you are a Floridian, after all. To continue speaks to an ego that I admire in a cool, professional way.

[Govinda]

His thesis was on arms reduction between the US and USSR.

I know that, and I'm not even American.

Guys.


(Also, as a side note, the UK doesn't have a constitution. And we're fine, and have been for hundreds of years, without one. If we want something we scare our government into doing it.)

[Alpha]

(Also, as a side note, the UK doesn't have a constitution. And we're fine, and have been for hundreds of years, without one. If we want something we scare our government into doing it.)

'Tis the same here. The document that may be considered a 'constitution' of sorts is routinely debated and often criticised. Some Euros came here, traded guns and blankets for vast tracts of land to a population who thought they were gifts, put some ink marks on a piece of paper and 'lo and behold we have New Zealand'.

It's not dangerous to question foundation principles. The foundation principles were themselves completely radical at their conception. It's one thing to recognise and cherish what has made one 'powerful' and 'free', and something good to wonder how that can be continued into a new millennium. A Conservative president will never do that; by definition they aim to 'conserve' what has empowered them.

People like you, Locke, are afraid of change. No matter what Obama does or says, you will not like it. Can you actually give me an example of something that Obama has done that you agree with? (Assumed answer) No. But does that make him wrong?

Anyway, what I came here to say is this: (Assuming that this is Obama's thesis, even though I'm now practically assured it's not) what it suggests is not some kind of destruction of your liberal values, but an expansion of the concept of freedom beyond the 'freedom to pursue' (wealth, 'happiness', etc.) to include such things as minimum standards of well-being (healthcare, education, etc.). I simply don't buy the argument that such reforms are going to lead to some type of Communist or socialist dictatorship (I've even heard people exclaim 'fascist', but no that's England ). Most of the developed world has public healthcare, but they also have the same liberal values enshrined in your constitution. Hell, the New Zealand press is a lot more impartial than the US press (seriously, not one mainstream news media, print or electronic, has an agenda, there have been studies), so does that mean we do it better?

And Locke, don't debate the merits of progressive taxation (etc) in this thread. Stick to the topic you initiated.

[OnionKnight]

I think you guys are being too hard on Locke. He is simply believing in what he's always brought up to believe in, and that is his country (what's wrong with that?)

He obviously has a high standard of values, which is no bad personality trait at all, and I wouldn't say he is afraid of change, Alpha, but more cautious in his approach.

Remember, if we all saw things the same way, the planet would be one entire nation.
We're not.