Dress code debate reflects the US Senate’s diminished reputation

The debate over the U.S. Senate dress code, spurred by Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), is a fight that seems insignificant to most yet reflects how the once vaunted and respected institution of the U.S. Senate has diminished in the eyes of the American people.

Most voters care more about gas prices and inflation than Fetterman’s hoodie. They know that senators have not saved the republic by voting this week to restore minimum standards for dress in spite of Fetterman. But this debate is more a fight over the future of an institution that has failed the public on policy and process than it is about coats and ties.

The Senate dress code is not an easy issue. Americans have largely tossed aside ties and jackets for a more business casual appearance (myself included). The rub is that the senator’s extreme choice of an outfit more appropriate for a nap on the couch has tested the limits of “business casual.”

His choice of a sweatshirt and shorts seems to reflect Sen. Fetterman’s disrespect for the institution that may not violate any rule but does show a lack of respect for the institution. Ultimately, the people of Pennsylvania, and Senators from his own party, should make it known that if he does not start dressing somewhat appropriate for work, there will be some consequences.

Think about it this way. If President Joe Biden showed up for his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in a “Rehoboth Beach” sweatshirt and shorts, his actions would harm the reputation of the U.S. in the eyes of the world. World leaders would be offended. Biden would become a laughingstock to the world for his dress.

The same can be said of the senator from Pennsylvania, who dresses like he has no respect for the institution of the Senate or his constituents.

The debate over the Senate dress code is only one reason why Americans dislike Congress.

The Senate once had a reputation as the most deliberative legislative body in the world, with extended debate and the opportunity for an open amendment process. But even these have been attacked in a way that diminishes the institution. Partisans in power who would prefer one-party rule have frustrated the amendment process and threatened to eliminate the filibuster — of course, only at moments when they believed their own party would benefit. This has further alienated voters from Washington political leaders and diminished the Senate’s reputation.

Various Democrats and Republicans over the years have consistently defended the institution, but their numbers are dwindling. Among them was the late Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who saw the destructive, short-sighted path that his party had taken when Democrats voted to end unlimited debate on nominations. More recently, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) stood up against Democrats’ plans for such a power-grab on legislation. In years past, when it was the Republicans who wanted to tear down the Senate to get their way in the short run, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was there to stop them.

Both Republican and Democratic Senate leaders have abused the rules of the Senate to prevent an open amendment process by engaging in an obscure procedural tactic. McConnell’s hands are not so clean on this issue.

Traditions of the U.S. Senate are important. According to the Senate historian, “despite more than 200 years of pressures to change, the Senate as an institution remains remarkably similar to the body created by the Constitutional Convention in 1787.” That includes the tradition of dressing appropriately and allowing individual members to express dissent on the Senate floor.

On the policy side, the Senate has also dropped the ball. Our nation is expected to approach $2 trillion in debt this year, with about $33 trillion in overall debt and no end in sight. The House and Senate are likely to let the government to enter a partial shutdown in a few days with no substantive debate on cutting spending. The fact that Congress overspends by trillions, while citizens have to restrict spending to make ends meet, is yet another reason the leaders of both parties have unfavorable approval ratings.

Ultimately, spending and policy are far more important issues than Fetterman’s fashion choices. Fetterman’s hoodie is a symptom of a diminished reputation rather than its cause. I believe somebody in Fetterman’s own party needs to convince him to show a bit more respect for the institution of the Senate and the people he represents.

After that, they need to get to work on restoring opportunities for debate and doing the hard work of cutting down the size of the federal government, which is far more important to voters than an unkempt senator.

Brian Darling is former counsel to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).