Well, I don’t know if you want to take his own office’s word about what he’s up to, but they put out a lot of press releases? A partial selection for September 2023:
(“Suspending student loans for survivors of sexual violence”, btw, apparently means suspending the automatic trigger for repayment of said loans for students who have temporarily left school due to that cause. It doesn’t mean that the survivors are being denied access to student loans in the first place, which puzzled me a bit and which I think should have been better worded.)
How much of anything is cultural conditioning? I do think clothing should be practical and suited to the environment. I have no problems with jeans or shorts or self-expression. But it seems to me the people who claim to be laid back are generally the most melodramatic when bemoaning why they don’t like ties. People who think the self-expression in nice clothing is limited to the tie generally do not know how to dress well. What is ridiculous to me is how all the Republicans make candidates dressed like Trump at the debate he didn’t show up for.
I would think less of a senator who showed up for a debate wearing a tank top or bathrobe. No one has to run for senator. Plenty of tall people can find clothes which fit them, and this evokes very limited sympathy. I personally wouldn’t think less of a senator who wore Docs, ripped jeans, a nice jacket, a short sleeve dress shirt and maybe a tie at the office. There is a reasonable middle ground.
But let us say the senators will dress as if they will get work done and you are suitably impressed. This is not the same as doing work.
Welllllllll. Strictly speaking, the key evolutionary turning point in the origin of the modern (European) men’s “suit” was the transition from Jacobean doublet and hose to the vest, coat and breeches combo.
You’re right that this transition is associated with the court of Charles II, but not so much in a PR attempt to look “grim and sober” as in a PR attempt to look like “No, France is NOT telling us what to do, tyvm”.
As the noted polemicist John Evelyn remarked in his 1661 pamphlet Tyrannus (which significantly pre-dated the 1665/6 London plague, btw):
The coat-waistcoat-breeches combo that Charles established as English court dress in 1666 was more conservative and stable in its cut than contemporary French fashions, but such suits were very far from being “grim and sober” in their general appearance. Brocades, satins, fancy accessories in brilliant colors and patterns were the rule up through the 18th century. Charles’ own personal taste for comparative informality of style and darker colors doesn’t seem to have had anything to do with the plague.
The guy who seems to have really launched the trend for “sobriety” in men’s suits was not Charles II but Beau Brummel nearly 150 years later. He was a renowned fashion “influencer” who introduced the fixation with understated elegance and exquisitely careful fit and detail, as opposed to bright color and showy ornamentation, that the modern men’s tailoring industry is still in thrall to.
[/this hijack has been brought to you by Kimstu, tireless advocate for the universal adoption of the sherwani suit for male partywear. Because it is the best clothing.]
I am all for anything that helps dispel the BS myth that the US Senate are any kind of learned elders whose wisdom needs to be respected. They deserve no extra consideration or deference. clowns, criminals, and geriatrics who in some cases are visibly disoriented to their immediate surroundings. These people are making absurd decisions that affect us for generations, the mask needs to come off.
Somewhere, I read of an MP for a mostly agricultural constituency who made a practice of wearing rather battered old tweeds to the House of Commons, to give the impression that he knew what he was talking about when raising rural issues, and in the constituency he wore smart lawyer-like suits to give the impression that he knew how to put one over the crooks in that there London.
Can he (Sergeant at Arms) actually do that? The senate can make rules about their own proceedings but can they make rules to keep a senator from actually doing their duty (i.e. walk on the senate floor and vote)? As long as it is not actually illegal I am not sure the senate can restrict its members in this way. If they could the majority could get up to all sorts of shenanigans.
And, while I like Fetterman, I am not keen on his casual approach here when it comes to dressing for the job (my opinion). It seems a lack of respect to the institution which percolates into society. I am not sure we need to erode respect for our government institutions further.
I’m now imagining an alternate Hitchhiker’s Guide canon in which Arthur Dent goes on to become a Galactic Senator and his dressing gown is seen by the other senators as a sign that he bears a strong attachment to his native culture and the people he represents in his quadrant.
Bespoke suits are a thing. Fetterman earns $174,000/year (at a minimum). He can afford a few of those. With a little care they will last many years.
Hell, with that salary and that job and that physique I’d (personally) head to Savile Row to have a few made. And that ain’t cheap. But I’d look fantastic.
I recall there were Congressmen who sidestepped the scanner gate (to detect guns) who were retrieved from the chamber and told to walk through the gate or don’t enter. The SaA has staff, I believe, and a Senator could kick and scream and throw a tantrum, but just like when bad guys do it on cop documentaries, they would ultimately be put where they belong.
As a beloved uncle once told me, “Bobby, don’t ever get in a fight with the cops. You don’t ever win.”
Is it against the actual law to bring a gun into congress? Or just congress rules?
And sure, a senator may be stopped by the SaA but who will prevail in the court case?
My understanding was police could not even detain a senator for speeding if they were headed to the senate to do their job. The SaA can stop them for wearing a hoodie?
For those of you who don’t care about dress, is there no situation in which you care about dress and grooming of persons you do business with? I presume you want your meal preparers/servers to exhibit SOME degree of cleanliness, no? And, yes, I understand the idea of respecting someone who looks like they are ready to/just coming from work, but are there no instances in which you feel adhering to some minimal dress and grooming standards reflects a minimal level of care, attention, and respect for the work and the people involved? A grade school teacher? Your doctor? Your accountant?
i agree on the sherwani suit, i do like eastern clothing over western. what of the howls of culture appropriation?
i am concerned that this rule is creating a 2 tier thing. the senators can wear what they want, others in the senate chamber can not. i believe there should be an equal dress code for all. having a 2 tier thing gives it an anti american “we are unequal” vibe.
There’s a difference between being required to wear certain clothes and choosing to wear certain clothes.
Dress codes are the remnants of historical sumptuary laws designed to make obvious the social standing of individuals. It’s purely a way for authoritarians to maintain the social order that’s benefiting themselves.
The only place dress codes are at all defensible is in situations where the role of each person needs to be immediately obvious. Situations like opposing sports teams playing each other, medical workers doing medicine, or law enforcement officers in the field.
Not a constitutional expert by any stretch, but I think the authority comes from the Constitution, which gives them pretty wide latitude to make their own rules.
You are correct the constitution lets each house make its own rules but I cannot imagine those rules can be used to stop a senator from coming to the chamber to vote or speak their mind. The constitution has a mechanism for that…expulsion.
Imagine if the senate said all female senators had to be topless when in the senate or House and otherwise won’t be admitted. Do you think the courts would say that’s just up to the House or Senate? I’m guessing not (I hope not). If that is too sexist and discriminatory then say all members of whatever gender have to be topless.
I get that’s crazy but if that is “obviously not something they can do” then walk it back…where is the line of what they can do to force a member of congress to dress a certain way.
Thanks. Your post makes a lot of sense, and give me food for thought.
My job is done in hearing rooms. Most of the lawyers wear business attire - tho it might skew towards business casual. But I really don’t pay attention so long as they are not wearing something like cut-offs and a tank top. (Heck, some of the hearings are done over the phone, so you have no idea what the participants are wearing.) It always seems odd when an atty does something like pointedly stand when the judge enters, or uses overly flowery language with “Your honors” and “With all due respects.” I consistently feel that a participant shows their respect for the process by being prepared and participating honestly. What they wear is immaterial. (IME, those who tend towards the overtly demonstrative displays of formality and “respect” tend to be the laziest, most dishonest, and most poorly prepared.)
But for whatever reason, I feel SOME level of dress is worthwhile in SOME situations to show respect for the process and participants. My understanding is that even in rural communities in the past, folk had their “Sunday go to meeting” clothes, which might be old, but were kept as clean and in as good repair as possible.
I have no interest in cleaving to some archaic rules of formality. But, OTOH, something nags me that skewing way to the other end, with an “everything goes” informality across the board may not be the best either.
I think formal dress codes are often adopted just because they establish bright lines that can be applied/enforced, when some yahoo decides they are going to really push things by wearing something really extreme. (Spoken as someone who worked where the front desk clerk in a government office, interacting directly with the public, objected to being told not to wear a t-shirt advertising a strip club! Yes, he filed a grievance, which became moot when he was fired for watching kiddie porn at work on the government computer.)
I don’t know. I guess if they’re true textualists they’d say it’s not for them to decide, and if the voters are offended by whoever made that rule change they could vote him out.
I realize your hypothetical is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum, and a legitimate one, but in practice such an outrageous rule would be shouted down and the leader would lose the gavel. No one would ever need to follow such a rule. And that’s assuming it’s not just outright illegal (i.e., violative of decency laws).
Excellent reply. I think the quote here captures the tension well. I think that we as a culture are still too invested* in the idea that social role must be displayed by our dress. Reducing that is moving towards respecting people for themselves not their appearances. But we all have our own opinions on appearance that are very difficult to ignore.
*Even our language implies that how we dress is important: invest is cognate with the Latin word for clothing.
