From everything I've read about this period in Rome's history, the antagonisms and tensions were coming right from the notion that things were fine just as they were, and any changes at all were bound to rock the boat and be, in the end, harmful rather than productive.

I think Cal's point is well taken - that Cato was a reactionary almost beyond belief, but at the same time, if that was the common reaction . . . that Rome was perfect 'as is' - he fits into the context much better!

I've always viewed Caesar as one of the view (like, later, Augustus) who really saw clearly that the teensy Rome with all its pride made no sense in terms of an imperial destiny.