|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Make sure to read Daniel Greenfield’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
Senate Majority Leader Schumer’s announcement that members of the not especially respected body will be able to wear what they want means that out go the business suits and in go Sen. Fetterman’s basketball shorts. The point of the old dress code was that the Senate was engaged in serious business and its members should look like adult professionals.
But what if its members, like Sen. Kyrsten Sinema or Sen. John Fetterman, aren’t adults? Sinema and Fetterman have both taken to wearing what feels good rather than attire that treats the offices they hold with due seriousness. And they are just flaunting what so many members of Congress already believe: that the office is all about their self-expression and about them.
It’s not just about the clothes. The pandemic allowed the House of Representatives to unleash proxy voting and even remote hearings. It became a common sight for United States government events to take place with a hotel room or a bathroom in the background.
Proxy voting meant that members of congress didn’t even have to bother coming to work if they didn’t feel like it. An endless slew of official letters by politicians who were on vacation, attending campaign events or conferences claimed that they couldn’t be there to vote in person because of the “public health emergency”. If anyone had bothered to enforce perjury laws, most of Congress would be serving time in prison, in person, with no proxy sentences allowed.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s decision to end proxy voting restored some small measure of dignity. Members of Congress are actually expected to show up in person and conduct the business of government. And yet the complaints continue. Why should members of Congress have to put what they want to do on hold to actually conduct government business?
And why should members of the Senate have to wear pants?
Dress codes and voting in person are forms of institutional standards. And, like wigs in British courts, they can seem silly, but they serve as important reminders that public officials are the bearers of a national tradition. John Adams argued for “a government of laws, not of men.” The civilizing formalities are not just forms of basic decency which bound our behaviors, they also remind the men and women in charge of our system that they serve something higher.
Not just themselves or their parties or their donors. They serve the American tradition.
It is no coincidence that the men and women who disdain dress codes or demand proxy voting also have little regard for laws, beginning with the constitution, and who want the absolute power to reshape our lives according to their whims. Radicals and extremists invariably reject any form of discipline or limitations on their powers. Their insistence that they ought to be able to do anything they want is an egotism that begins with them and ends with us losing our rights.
Tradition teaches us to see ourselves as more than our egos. Capitol Hill and much of Washington D.C. is a history lesson writ in paint and stone. Those who pass through it are supposed to understand that they are part of a national pageant and elected officials, in particular, are taking up a role held by their predecessors for hundreds of years.
There are some who still see it that way, but the House has no shortage of cranks, radicals, foreigners, egomaniacs, extremists and others to whom history is meaningless and worthless. When they look at the statues, they don’t feel themselves to be a part of the nation’s past, they just count which ones they’d like to see taken down and how they can claim credit for it. Dress codes have no value to people who respect no national tradition and certainly no traditional clothing beyond the Islamic hijab, because they don’t see themselves within a larger body.
Until recent times, members of the two houses saw themselves as part of American institutions, in solidarity with each other, and with the nation, across party lines and partisan elections. When it comes to Sen. Fetterman or Rep. Ilhan Omar, that should not be taken for granted.
Politics has always been abusive and corrupt, the force of tradition, patriotism, heritage and other intangibles helped restrain some of the worst impulses of elected officials. Those forces are dissolving. A government of laws is being replaced by a government of men who refuse to be limited by traditions, principles or laws. As American traditions fall apart, what replaces them are the even older traditions of politics, personality cults, tribalism, and the determination to seize power by any means necessary and hold it even more ruthlessly.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” Adams warned. That is even more true of politicians who have already shown ample evidence that at the earliest opportunity they will tear any constitution or body of laws apart like wolves descending on a wounded sheep.
Dress codes are one of the niceties of tradition that serve as canaries in a coal mine. Politicians who are self-interested and undisciplined enough that they can’t be bothered to abide by them won’t be likely to keep any of the more serious traditions and laws that they help to guard.
Tradition seems silly and worthless if you’re a self-centered child which is what our average politician is. Asking them to accept any restraint on their powers is too much. Why should they be expected to abide by the minimal expectation of countless offices in the country? Or by any expectations at all? Why should they be expected to come to work or not, suddenly, decide to declare that the Second Amendment has been suspended by a public health emergency?
In a government of men, not laws, politicians don’t reason or respect the past, they feel very deeply and they believe that following their feelings is the reason that they were elected. They don’t see themselves as part of a larger body or a nation, only as righteous individuals here to destroy the past and usher in the future based on whatever they believe right this second.
America needs dress codes, more than it needs politicians, it needs standards more than it needs iconoclasts, it needs men and women willing to put the country ahead of themselves.
And it would help if some of them could also put on a pair of pants before they go to work.
Wigs also solved another common 17th-century problem: lice. Head lice were everywhere in the middle ages and not only did they cause a lot of discomfort but also transmitted a number of diseases (including typhus). But in order for the wig to fit properly, people needed to have their heads shaved off, eliminating the lice problem in the process.
It’s why sword duellists took off their wigs before combat and the origin of the phrase ‘Keep your hair on’ when asking others to calm down.
I understood that the prevalence of syphilis, which in secondary stages caused one’s hair to fall out, made the wig a common fasion accessary. But I may be wrong.
Yeah, that was another one of the factors.
Wigs also covered some truly gruesome smallpox scars, as did the fashionable facial patches used primarily by women and wags, not politicians.
john fetterman (D – salvation army). If Ed Wood or Roger Corman were still making movies, fetterman could have a second career playing ghouls.
Oh! And here I thought that he was Bigfoot, which is reportedly often seen here in western Pennsylvania.
This prick’s dress code reflects his grunge band lead singer fantasy.
He’s another pampered fool who milked his trust-fund to drift through college. He didn’t learn anything other than socialist “studies”.
If government were ever to downsize (my fantasy), the useless idiot would have to panhandle on the streets, rather than in the Senate.
(Seriously. This braindead, unwashed adolescent proves the saying “the best case against Democracy is a 5 minute conversation with your average voter”.)
Excellent summary.
His spindly legs should be disallowed too.
Well said, Mr. Greenfield!!! You covered all the reasons why these codes are so important. Thank you for sharing your insight with us!!!
That picture of Fetterman haunted me all the while I was preparing breakfast, & now I know why….he looks like a Walmart shopper!!!
But for their government sinecure, these “woke” Democ-rat slobs wouldn’t be on the radar of serious people. A government shutdown looms if no agreement can be reached with the hobo Democ-rats’ “opposition” party on raising the debt ceiling. Whatever other effect a government shut down might bring, slobbering Democ-rat legislators would be fit to be tied. Tell me again, why are “patriots” voting to raise the debt ceiling? Perhaps they’re all Democ-rat slobs, some just in disguise.
I’ve quipped oft, that legislation should be introduced that ALL politicians take a 75% pay cut, until the budget gets balanced.
Here in Dallas, activist judge Eric Moye scolded business owner Shelley Luther that she was “selfish” for no going yet another month without income during the bullshit shutdown.
That judge didn’t forego a single paycheck, so I’d say he’s the selfish one.
No doubt no one hear writing this, but are ever (really) any leftist that isn’t selfish to the core of their being. I mean that level of selfish that defines heart, soul – and being?
Time and time again, I am left knowing this about that leftist I must interact with.
I wonder how their going to look for Halloween next month made up as clowns and jokers
Giving in to Psychotics, Freaks, Perverts, Racists/B-Supremacists, and Degenerates… AND COMMUNISTS!
I’D WEAR A MAGA HAT WITH A HOODIE OF TRUMP’S MUGSHOT ON FRONT AND BACK.
The dress code would change immediately. “No Trump or MAGA gear allowed on Senate or House Floor.
NEXT DAY: A hoodie with CHE photo. “Allowed.”
This removing of the dress code is just the beginning. Just as slovenly attire has become more of a norm throughout society, soon we shall see it in the Senate and House. Mark my words, you will within three years see even more casual attire than that exhibited by Fetterman..Torn jeans, t-shirts, short shorts, sneakers, etc etc will all be common among our legislators and higher civil service personnel. Fetterman is not an exception. Mark my words: he’s a trend setter.
I’m trying to avoid my well worn rant about grown men who dress like babies! They wear onesies. Hoodies, sweat pants sneakers everywhere they go. I know women do it to -wear sweatshirts, bedroom slippers and leggings. If you Dress like a baby. You Behave like a baby.
But I’ll focus on the men. Go check out a 1940’s movie. What man isn’t impressive and handsome in a suit, overcoat and a fedora. Think GregoryPeck.
That’s my rant.
You’re right as usual, Cat.
There was a time when people dressed decently to fl;y on a Commercial Plane and recently I had to sit next to a guy that looked like he came from Skid Row and smelled like it, I asked the Hostess if she could find me another Seat but the Plane was full… What a flight that was..
It’s pretty sad when big boy can’t come up with a suit that fits him, but it used to be about respect and decorum, Unfortunately, those who occupy the Senate chambers in $1500 suits don’t respect the position or the chambers any more than Fetterman does, just ask Kyrsten Sinema with her $2000 hooker boots. They’re merely a symptom of a much greater problem that Americans either need to address or enjoy. A “dumbing down” of things is typically a lasting thing.
The only possible advantage that might accrue from Fetterman dressing like a thug is if he came at you in the dark you could shoot him in self defense. Scratch one thug plus there would be marginally more freedom in the US with a Democrat tyrant gone.
The question I must ask is where will this end? Imagine, for instance, Mitch McConnell showing up in a bra and panties. Then again, maybe not…
The Left continues to demean America and the US Senate any way they can.
the dress code matches their contribution .
There was a Law in The Halls of Congress put in place in the 1880s that stated NO head covering allowed within the Halls of Congress … and then a wee Somali muslim arrived and said such Laws were racist to her and so America bowed down to her and now she wears her hijab rag on her dumb head while laughing at Americans that are not muslims.
Public dress code is a form of fashion for a clearly identifiable group of individuals united in a common purpose.
Sports teams. Armies. Hospitals. Schools. Congress.
I actually think that Congress does not have the legal right to decide how it dresses.
It’s a con, as in ‘Con’gress.
This supposedly superficial issue is anything but superficial. It is meant to degrade and eventually extinguish this more and more dysfunctional and morally challenged legislative branch of government, as is being done in the judicial branch, in order to make the executive branch the only, unchecked branch of government with rule over and against, not of, by and for, the people.