GUEST ESSAY
By Bob Henke
There is a major hoorah taking place now in our nation’s capital, generating all sorts of acrimony. It has nothing to do with international terrorism or any of a score of critical domestic issues. Instead, the argument is about what our senators wear when they show up to work. Wielding the power of majority leader, our Senator, Chuck Schumer decreed there is no longer a dress code. Senators can now show up in hoodies, shorts, and sneakers instead of suit, tie, and wingtips.
Schumer had good reason—he was doing a favor for Pennsylvania’s senator John Fetterman. Folks had begun to make noise about Fetterman’s habit of loping around the senate floor dressed like he was enroute to play basketball.
Pundits were as quick to respond as the other senators: some lamenting the lack of decorum and others contending all that mattered was how they voted, not how they dressed.
It was impressed upon me as a teenager, and reemphasized as I studied other cultures in graduate school, that clothes and personal adornment are, first and foremost, one of the most important methods of communication developed by cultures. The hippie movement of the 60s embraced the idea of counter-culture dress espousing the Depression-era homily, “Clothes don’t make the man.” The platitude was intended to say one should look beyond dress, hair style, or even personal hygiene and see the person instead.
The hippies totally missed the rest of older statement, which in total was, “Clothes don’t make the man. Mine are patched but they are clean.” One might be unable to afford new but they could express that they had respect enough for themselves and others to convey that by presenting in the best possible manner.
Choice of personal deportment is nothing more than sending a message to other people. I have a dark suit for important social occasions. I call it my “marrying and burying” clothes—the distinction between happy and sad occasions demonstrated by the choice of tie and shirt colors. I would not disrespect a grieving family by wearing a sweatshirt and sneakers to a funeral. When I go to a County Board meeting (or, for that matter, on a lobbying trip to visit a senator,) I put on a suit and make sure my shoes are spit-shined. It communicates the fact that I take the matter seriously.
I expect my elected representatives to look like the station, location, and duties were important to them. Dressing otherwise communicates either a lack of seriousness or a lack of respect — take your pick.
Bob Henke is the longtime outdoors columnist for The Post-Star, supervisor of the town of Argyle and chairman of the Washington County Board of Supervisors.
I agree with you. But I always have heard the saying as "Clothes make the man." I'm fascinated by your variation, which I have never heard. I don't think you'll get much argument. I'm struggling to come up with something.
Fetterman seems to define himself this way, standing out for his insistence on casual clothes and a sloppy look. It's annoying. Congress has gotten full of folks trying to stand out for reasons that have nothing to do with their work, like Lauren Boebert trying to carry a gun into the House of Representatives.
There is an attitude among political leaders now that celebrates rule-breaking, whether cultural mores, such as dressing with respect, or actual laws. A society can suffocate in rules, I believe, but can also disintegrate because of rule-breaking. We're going in the latter direction.
I agree and remember there were “church clothes” also growing up- I’m your generation Bob! And when we came home from church we changed into play clothes . These habits were really traditions and I felt were a reflection of our values. Sigh. Thanks to Covid times I now have casual sweat clothes and dressy sweats! But I’ll still where my jewelry- but that’s a topic for another day!