One of the interesting things about the Fetterman dress scandal is that the suit itself was once the gym shorts and hoodie of its day. This part got cut from my Politico op-ed (for good reason; it was getting long and tangential). But when Keir Hardie—a Scottish union leader and co-founder of what would later become the Labour Party—was first elected to Parliament in 1892, he wore a tweed suit, a red necktie, and a deerstalking cap to his first day of work. Today, we think of the suit as a formal garment, the very glass of respectability. But as I've mentioned here before, this was not always so. In the late 19th century, men in high positions—such as those in banking and law—wore the more formal frock coat. Working-class clerks and administrators wore the fustian lounge suit. When Hardie was elected, the proper Parliamentary uniform was a black frock coat, a starched wing collar, and a black silk top hat. Hardie, who was elected to represent the people of West Ham South—a working-class seat in Essex, now Greater London—rejected this uniform because he felt it was the symbol of capital. Instead, he opted to dress like his constituents. Polite society was scandalized. The press was so offended that he wore a deerstalking cap—a flat cap style associated with members of the working class, rather than the silk top hat worn by MPs—one paper wrote: "A cloth cap in Parliament!" I'm not convinced Fetterman is dressing to signal anything (if he was, he would be more vocal about it). As I mentioned in my op-ed, I think he should not only wear a suit in the Senate chamber but even when walking through Congressional halls. Not doing so creates a distraction from more meaningful matters. But being "respectful" of our political system is much more than dressing up. It's about how you serve honorably. You can signal this through your clothes, but someone not wearing those clothes does not necessarily mean they are not fulfilling the more important duties. We should focus more attention on actions, not clothes. But it's an interesting historical point that the suit was, at one point, causing a very similar controversy.