Dressing for democracy
Balancing self-expression with institutional respect
The way we dress is, among other things, a form of selfexpression. And one of the attitudes our dress can express is respect for others, for institutions and for one’s work.
In the case of the United States Senate, and other institutions where the work of democracy takes place, standards of respectful dress don’t necessarily have to be enforced in a strict code. Standards and fashions and the public meaning of attire all change over the years; rules for dress should not attempt to define the standards of a particular moment in time as binding for all time.
That’s why Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s relaxation of the Senate dress code is not, all by itself, cause for distress. After all, in recent years the House has relaxed its code in response to contemporary standards of respectful dress by allowing women to — brace yourselves — bare their arms in the chamber.
At the same time, however, it should go without saying that the people’s elected representatives should reflect the dignity of the people when they do the people’s work. And that brings us to the particular context of Mr. Schumer’s decision, which is the appearance of Pennsylvania’s Sen. John Fetterman.
After a few months of forcing himself to wear the conventional suit-andtie, Mr. Fetterman has backslid to his preferred wardrobe of hooded sweatshirts and athletic shorts. This appears to have been related to his release from inpatient care for clinical depression, and no one can begrudge a person the desire for physical and psychological comfort during and after such a crisis.
Still, Mr. Fetterman’s condition does not relieve him from the duties of public life, one of which is to respect the institutions of public life, and the people whom he represents there. While casualness is increasingly common in professional settings, including the corridors of legislative office buildings, the business of democracy that takes place in the quasi-sacred confines of the House and Senate chambers has a unique dignity.
There is no question that members’ words and actions have defiled this dignity in recent years. (U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s attack on Mr. Fetterman’s attire, after the antics she has pulled in the House, is hypocrisy of the most blatant kind.) But how we dress is an action, and we should expect our representatives to uphold the highest standards of decorum, not bicker as they lower them.
It is notable that Mr. Schumer’s dress code reform applies only to senators themselves. Staffers and others must still wear business attire when on the Senate floor. That means that, in the context of the Senate itself, Mr. Fetterman’s casual attire is an expression of his privileged position: He can wear clothes no one else is permitted because he is a senator.
It is not snobbishness for the people to expect their representatives to dress to high standards when they do the people’s business. In fact, it is the people’s respect for themselves, asthe people, that demands it. Dress code or no, we hope Mr. Fetterman will honor that dignity.