U.S. Senate unanimously passes formal dress code after uproar
axios.com
The Senate passed a resolution Wednesday to make business attire a requirement on the Senate floor.
The moves comes after backlash to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) directive to scuttle the chamber's informal dress code, which was widely viewed to be inspired by Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
The bipartisan resolution requires that business attire be worn on the floor of the Senate, "which for men shall include a coat, tie, and slacks or other long pants."
The bill does not spell out what the attire includes for women.
You are viewing a single comment
Yes, let's enforce a classist dress code to remind everyone how classist we are. That'll fix everything.
It certainly makes it more likely for the rich to be able to go to the senate. Especially if you're an especially big and tall guy like Fetterman who would have to get all of his suits tailor-made.
Yeah it’s basically an attempt to be like the House of Lords in a country without nobility
You might not have a nobility but you've sure as shit got an aristocracy. Cabots, Lowells, Hearsts, Kennedys...
the Lowells speak only to Cabots, and the Cabots speak only to God
'Home of the bean and the cod...' That's where I first became aware of the Boston Brahmin.
For anyone interested in reading quite a long bit about how the early European settlers influenced modern US culture, Slate Star Codex's book review of Albion's Seed gives a good outline.
This is a line that stuck in my head since the first time I read 'a brief history of nearly everything' by Bill Bryson.
Thanks for the link!
You're welcome.
Oh absolutely but they don’t hold titles or political power granted by blood. If the Vanderbilt family loses all its money that’s it. I’ve known several poor people whose family had been old money but lost it all. Our aristocracy has to fight to stay an aristocracy.
And yeah that’s part of the point of the senate. It was clearly meant for representatives to be the common dredges of society, whoever the hell the people of a small geographical area felt represented them at the time. Both the 6 year term and the 2 per state quantity are meant to make it a more prestigious institution. It’s more expensive to become a senator and you have to be able to appeal to people outside your area. That results in a handful of senators that aren’t alike, but for the most part they’re career politicians, rich people, backed by rich people, or from a more legal background. A representative Kennedy isn’t sure they want to be a politician that much, is breaking their teeth, or is a fuckup, kennedies are senators. The founders of the United States saw themselves in the senate or executive branch. Hell, even in states with more senators than representatives, due to the greater power of senators they’re the ones that fit those descriptions.
Attempt? That was the original intent. They still wanted aristocracy, they just wanted it to be wealth based instead of hereditary.
What an odd way to say the same thing twice in those last five words
Let’s remember that a bastard who married rich that had a good deal of influence on how our government works. He definitely was making sure that he had a future.
Only if you want them to fit. I saw no requirement for that in the memo
I'd laugh my ass off if Fetterman shows up next time in a jacket that barely reaches his elbows
Bonus points if some other Senator walks in looking like a Dick Tracy villain
Bingo bango. High-waters, hoooo!
It's the Senate, it's intended to be the "upper class."
The rabble is supposed to be in the House of Representatives.