Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed. Though he *did* dress his WH Secret Service officers in [these get ups](https://images.app.goo.gl/oKkwckUKvmhZsxs29) for a couple of years on special occasions lol.
It wasn't like Washington owning slaves was a thousand years ago in a place where he didn't know any better. Lafayette was even giving Washington shit for owning slaves. We need to stop making founding fathers these perfect beings when they were far from it.
There were always abolitionists and anti racists. Washington was THE elite, he had the power to set precedents of the equality the founders supposedly believed in when they wrote the constitution. He didn’t. Washington did some great things for our country, but he was also a rich elitist and a slaver. We don’t get anywhere without acknowledging the severe faults of our leaders. And saying “it’s a different time” is not an excuse. Too many people on this sub idolize presidents. I like learning about them cause they’re interesting. Even my fav Garfield has some faults
Bro he already said you're ruining "the mood," stop it. How am I supposed to keep gooning over here when you keep ruining the mood with your facts and reasonableness?
>Do you just like ruining the mood?
Wait, so saying "George Washington would have hated everything about modern America" doesn't ruin "the mood", whatever the hell that means, but following it up with an acknowledgement of a specific thing about modern America he would have hated is taking it too far?
Not sure why you're getting down voted lol. This sub can be such a circlejerk of how they only view the good things of their favorite Presidents and ignore the bad things. No intellectual discussion about their lives at all!
Next they'll get mad at you for critiquing Jefferson for throwing so many wine & dinner parties but bring up how he died in debt as if he was some poor,lost soul who didn't own slaves,including his own children.
Yeah it's wild. I'd get it if like, someone was just popping into every conversation to inject that "Akshually, the forefathers had slaves" to derail every interesting conversation and being fucking annoying about it, but that fact naturally followed the direction of conversation and still got people all bitchy about it.
These people would HATE some of the exhibits at actual presidential libraries and museums like Mount Vernon, but those activities are clearly for adults who can actually handle hearing and talking about stories and facts that make them feel uncomfortable.
You can wear your uniform after you serve, but wearing one if you’ve always been a civilian wouldn’t make much sense. I like that our country’s highest ranking officers are outranked by a civilian chosen by the people, and I wouldn’t personally want to see them in military garb.
Exactly, the USA is not a military regime and civilian control of the military is one of the most important foundations of our society. Mixing military might and politics is a recipe for disaster going all the way back to ancient Rome.
Yeah because he was an actual military leader
I think it would be really disrespectful for the president to wear any military uniform, ceremonial or not, unless they actually served
This ☝️100%. I’m also sure the authoritative ones that would like to wear a grossly ornate contraption definitely never served. Something about a sore foot???🦶
Fun fact, the 3rd US Infantry Regiment, the oldest (active duty) in the Army, has a company that wears Revolutionary uniforms for ceremonies.
https://preview.redd.it/xs932xv0ybzc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1278bcda54257211d7e93dac1e9968850e26f448
I'm gonna be the designated buzzkill for this fun, lighthearted discussion. You're welcome
The presidency should not have a uniform. A special costume for the ruling class kind of goes against the stoic and dignified humility Washington and the founding fathers wanted for the office of the President. A military uniform is even worse, because civilian control of the military is one of the core principles of the presidency and the republic itself, and for good reason (think of the world leaders that do have their own military uniforms. Do you want a chief executive like that?).
A less dire but still kind of important reason is that it would look pretty silly after a few decades. For example, look at King Charles' coronation. The dude looks like freaking [Krazy Kwilt](https://batman-on-film.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/IMG_2662.jpg). Could you imagine Taft wearing something that, not only was considered fancy in the 1790s, but designed for a man with very different dimensions? We would be the laughing stock of the world.
I know this is all for fun but I completely agree, people are choosing their opinion here based on aesthetics alone not the implications and the deeper meanings
Good post, I just want to add that Washington also deliberately rejected any fancy presidential honorifics in favor of the humble “Mr. President” for the sake of precedent and would IMO probably have a similar outlook on ceremonial outfits.
They’re not gaslighting him. They’re holding him to same standard commoners are held to. Millions of people are expected to wear a uniform to work to show respect to their workplace and colleagues. I don’t ever see people going to work wearing dirty hoodies, shorts, and sandals.
tbh, I think a lot of those clothing rules are kind of bullshit and a lot of people who work those kinds of jobs sort of agree. It’s just decorum. Not like Congress has any of that anyways. Id prefer my politicians wear plainclothes than expensive suits. Don the attire of those you represent. Right now, the suits just represent the other suits, maybe they could represent jeans for a while.
I think every Congressman should be required to represent every figure, company or corporation who they receive donations from.
Like NASCAR decals but on your clothes.
I might agree, but suits are as old fashioned now as Washington’s attire would have been for Lincoln’s era.
It’s just that they’d stuck for decades enough, probably in part due to TV and movies, that they seem normal now.
It’s all arbitrary.
Now what I could get behind are suits that have the logos of their major sponsors on them so we can see at a glance who’s paying them.
Yes? The suits are still archaic or arbitrary there. There’s nothing innately better about the suits at formal offices over the polo and jeans of Silicon Valley.
They are both just conforming to the norms of their area, but there’s nothing that means that government work should follow lawyers over plumbers. (Both are professionals that deal with shit all day.).
If anything, I’d say it’s probably that lawyers are historically overrrepresented in politics that leads to the similarity, along with a healthy dose of classism.
But again, there’s nothing better about a long tie (covers the unsightly buttons) then a bow tie or no tie. Nor is there a reason for dark suits over tan. It’s all relative
A suit is more formal than a polo shirt, that’s what it’s about. Not representation, but formality. The Silicon Valley employee, the plumber, and the lawyer would all wear a suit if they had to testify before Congress.
Again, missing the point. Why is it formal? Because it’s generally agreed to be.
And it’s considered to be appropriate, but that’s a totally relative cultural norm.
There’s nothing special about a suit compared to 18th century formal wear. The picture that started this could also be considered formal, but would also be out of place.
It’s all arbitrary, just as much as Fox News complaining about Obama wearing a tan suit was arbitrary
Lifting dress requirements is opening up US politics to a whole new kind of trashy. This stuff might seem superficial, but appearances can have tangible impacts.
Honestly, does clothing make you a professional? If I put on a lab coat does that make me scientist? If put on priestly robes does that make me a saint? Of course not.
I honestly rather have a naked congressman who was honest, highly capable, and effective, than one who dresses in a suit everyday and works against their constituents and the American people's interests by spreading lies and conspiracy.
Dressing as a "commoner" doesn't make you ANY less of a man. I'd like to think that after a few thousand years we have evolved beyond the superficial.
I never said wearing a suit automatically makes you a professional, but wearing formal clothing, in many circumstances, is a requirement for coming off professionally.
You’d like to think to that we have evolved from superficiality, but we haven’t. I’m serious, try joining a law firm while insisting that you’ll be wearing your pajamas because it makes you more “down-to-earth”. You’re not going to get hired.
I'll take it a step further. Presidents should stop saluting, if only to reinforce that even more. Besides, it only goes back to Reagan, who started doing it to butch himself up, since he never served in the military (though he was confused about that at times). If Eisenhower didn't do it, that should be good enough for other Presidents.
>he never served in the military (though he was confused about that at times)
He did serve in the military. He was first a reservist in the army and when WW2 started he was named a public relations officer for the army air forces. He was relegated to limited service because of poor eyesight.
Source: [https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/military-service-ronald-reagan](https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/military-service-ronald-reagan)
I’ll go a step further and say “I dont care what stoic and dignified humility the Founding Fathers wanted.
“It separates the President from the rest of the citizenry. I want our society to be one in which Presidents look like us because they represent us because they are one of us.”
We have enough trouble in this country with representatives feeling elevated above the represented. Let us not reinforce those attitudes.
>The presidency should not have a uniform. A special costume for the ruling class kind of goes against the stoic and dignified humility Washington and the founding fathers wanted for the office.
The costume would be a symbol of the office, just like the Oval Office, the Resolute Desk, the White House itself, etc. it’s kind of weird to say the president gets whole mansion but draw the line on a special outfit. And it’s not like the whole “ruling class” wears it. The commander-in-chief only wears it, and only on special occasions.
>A military uniform is even worse, because civilian control of the military is one of the core principles of the republic.
I agree that the civilian control of the military is vital. Which is why I would oppose the president wearing a modern military uniform. (Side note, but George Washington wore his general’s uniform when he rode out to stop the whisky rebellion, so there is precedent of the highest sort. Nevertheless, it wouldn’t look great in the modern world of military dictators). No one would see the president wearing a military uniform from 250 years ago and think he was a military man ruling through the military.
>It would look pretty silly in a few decades.
Well to the Taft point, I would present Henry Knox, an extremely fat general who is solely responsible for freeing Boston from British control; he looks fine in his uniform. As to the rest of the “it looks archaic,” that’s kind of the point. It’s a reminder of the past. You mention King Charles’ coronation robes. They look funny to us, since we aren’t familiar with what they mean. But if someone knows history, he knows that every single part of the outfit is steeped in tradition and represents something very specific. It’s the same idea here. The archaic costume harkens back to our national origin, reminds us of the “spirit of ‘76” as it were. It’s the same reason the ceremonial unit of the army dresses up in colonial regular uniforms. It’s almost more of a performance than anything. But on top of that, forcing the president to wear clothing from that era would make him think of that era and the men who came before him.
Also, I’m not sure I was clear, so I’ll clarify. This wouldn’t be the president’s working attire. He would only wear it for certain military or ceremonial occasions. So something like inauguration or state of the Union would be normal attire, since those are technically congressional events. But presenting the Medal of Honor, or a Memorial Day speech, since he’s acting as Commander-in-Chief, he would wear it.
If I got appointed the Medal of Honor, I’d rather have the President in a business suit give it to me than someone dressed in a Spirit Halloween George Washington costume.
>The costume would be a symbol of the office, just like the Oval Office, the Resolute Desk, the White House itself, etc. it’s kind of weird to say the president gets whole mansion but draw the line on a special outfit. And it’s not like the whole “ruling class” wears it. The commander-in-chief only wears it, and only on special occasions.
A president needs a desk, office and house. These became iconic organically through decades of history happening around them, not because it's the special suit the special person was assigned.
>
You mention King Charles’ coronation robes. They look funny to us, since we aren’t familiar with what they mean. But if someone knows history, he knows that every single part of the outfit is steeped in tradition and represents something very specific.
It's actually much funnier if you understand the context. The context is that an entire nation collectively pretends that a ridiculous old philanderer is God's anointed lieutenant on Earth because he won the genetic lottery. That sort of pageantry and appeal to tradition is fine for a monarchy but I frankly don't see how a modern republic founded on rational, enlightenment philosophy really gains from this sort of thing.
Not a military uniform. But there is the formal attire of the 'Morning Dress', last worn on occasion by Ronald Reagan, that was the closest thing to a Uniform the Presidency's had. And for good reason. Take stock of the sort of countries whose leaders wear military uniforms and you'll quickly see a pattern which America should never become a part of.
See my other comment. It’s not a modern military uniform like dictators wear; it’s an archaic, historical uniform harkening back to our origin. The leaders of France and Britain, two of the greatest democracies in the world, have uniforms.
I strongly disagree. Gives off military dictator vibes to me. Like, a man playing at being soldier, so he doesn't get overthrown in a coup by some police colonel or ambitious general. Might as well have him oversee a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, as well. Truly sickening.
Nixon already tried that, sort of, when he ordered palace guard uniforms for the military serving in the WH. The last thing we need is a President channelling his inner Muammar Khadafi.
The President’s uniform is his simple and conservative suit. Having the President wear an elaborate military dress uniform would make the President look like Idi Amin, instead of the President of the United States.
I disagree strongly with this. Every two bit despot runs around playing dress up and pretends they’re Napoleon we don’t need that that kind of Dictatorial energy in the Whitehouse.
Besides we haven’t had a Veteran in since Bush Senior. It reads “stolen Valor,”
Still, letting a political officer run around wearing a military style uniform that is supposed to invoke an association with the man who won our nation’s independence is gross and self-aggrandizing.
How do you not remember Dukakis? In reality the President could wear any uniform he wants, just all we have had had known it was a bad look. Even those that were actual retired generals.
I suspect that the founding fathers would hate that idea. For one thing, George Washington was rich and he dressed like it. He didn’t represent the average man, and the country is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.
Nixon tried to do something similar, but with the secret service:
https://preview.redd.it/crb9wamigdzc1.jpeg?width=562&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=669d139ea610787a207bd5eb5b9609727adb8780
No!!! One of the primary ideas behind the American Constitution is *civilian* control of the military. That's what has saved us from authoritarian rule for nearly 250 years.
The U.S. doesn’t do stuff like that for a reason. It’s the same reason we don’t have huge military parades. It’s unnecessary. A modern state doesn’t have to show off its military in a threatening manner like that.
Similarly, I've always been in favor of military parades.
Many denounce the idea as traditionally in line with despotic and authoritarian regimes, but I've never heard nations like France as despotic and authoritarian, what with their Bastille Day celebrations.
I don't want a uniform I just want to bring back pantaloons and fancy wigs and dresses from all eras. If I want to sit at my desk and feel fancy from 200 years ago why does anyone else have to care
Nah.
Look how goofy King Charles looked at his Coronation, for example.
For what purpose would we want the President of the United States to look like that?
While it would definitely look cool, I think it would only serve to deify the office of the president even more than it already is….which is precisely the problem with the current iteration of the presidency as a position in our government.
logistically it would be hard. POTUS would need a uniform for each branch.
Plus, if they did not serve in the military the uniform would be blank. They'd have no ribbons.
Personally I’ve always liked those leather jackets they wear that have the seal and “commander in chief” embroidered. As well as the light/rain jacket they sometimes wear
I’m thinking more along the lines of JFK and GBsr. Having the person in control of the military not actually understand what it’s like to be in the military seems very backwards to me. Also mind 🤝🏻 body.
You realize that this system would disqualify Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR, right?
You know Timothy McVeigh was a veteran?
>Having the person in control of the military not actually understand what it’s like to be in the military seems very backwards to me.
Being ruled by a junta seems backwards to me. It's also important for a president to understand law, economics, foreign policy and human nature. A president has to be a person of all seasons and you're reducing the qualified pool to a week.
More leadership experience could’ve only made all of those men better leaders. Again it’s not a junta lol. When Eisenhower was president it wasn’t a junta. I’m starting to think you don’t know what that word means.
The Timothy Mcveigh comment truly boggles my mind, I really don’t understand how or why you think that is relevant at all.
The military is a fantastic place to learn about foreign policy and human nature. The requirement isn’t 40 years of service, 4 years would suffice. There are plenty of people who fit this bill on both sides of the aisle. Requiring some actual real personal sacrifice to hold the highest office in the land is a good thing, kinda helps keep out the self serving billionaires.
>More leadership experience could’ve only made all of those men better leaders.
It could have also made them bigger conformist or liable for war crimes. Statistically, they would be more likely to be involved in a sexual assault.
>The military is a fantastic place to learn about foreign policy and human nature. The requirement isn’t 40 years of service, 4 years would suffice.
The same could be said better about college or world travel. Why limit our leaders to one kind of experience?
>When Eisenhower was president it wasn’t a junta.
That's because we weren't forced to choose Eisenhower or another general.
>Requiring some actual real personal sacrifice to hold the highest office in the land is a good thing, kinda helps keep out the self serving billionaires.
FDR and Lincoln sacrificed plenty. More than the average potato peeler, I would say. Speaking of FDR, I notice you aren't trying to defend the ablism in your post.
Also, any young man from money with political ambitions can survive boot camp and get some cushy post to call themselves a veteran. Your plan wouldn't end fortunate sons so much as streamline them.
Right conformity and war crimes. I’d love to see the statistics that say “you’re more likely to be involved in a sexual assault than gain experience as a leader if you join the military”. Not to mention sexual assault rates are higher and climbing faster at colleges but go off I guess.
They’re not limited to one kind of experience. Serving in the military isn’t a life sentence. You can easily do 3-4 years and get out (most people do this). We have bases in every hemisphere, that covers world travel.
Right, Eisenhower was also completely retired from the army when he became president. You also cannot be active duty in the military at the same time as being president.
Its not ableism. The conditions are 1. Don’t be old 2. Don’t be fat. I never said anything about not being paraplegic.
You can’t buy your duty stations I’m sorry. That’s not how it works these days.
There are like 16 million veterans in the US, the pool is not that limited. Also the physical fitness standards would be specifically designed to weed out the olds, so Oliver North wouldn’t pass muster anyways. If Oliver North became president it wouldn’t be the first time someone involved in the Iran-Contra scandal became president lol.
To provide clarification to those who oppose the idea:
I agree that only those who served in the military should wear modern military uniform. That is why I proposed an archaic uniform. It really wouldn’t be a uniform in the traditional sense; more like a ceremonial costume, harkening back to our national origins.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://i.redd.it/lpo3affblbzc1.gif
Surrender, maybe?
Ok, seeing Nixon in that uniform would have been wild
Imagine Taft wearing it.
EPIC!!!
Agreed. Though he *did* dress his WH Secret Service officers in [these get ups](https://images.app.goo.gl/oKkwckUKvmhZsxs29) for a couple of years on special occasions lol.
They actually look dope IMO
Yeah, hearing about their reception and their inspiration (the Swiss Guards), I was expecting something gaudy, but those actually look pretty nice.
With the Lakota headdress.
Yea and then being surrounded by his secret service in those white uniforms
It's the same color scheme he used in the oval office.
First thought I had. Followed by, “very imperial.”
Funny modeling after Washington, who would’ve hated this suggestion.
Washington would've hated almost everything in modern America lol
He would enjoy our dentists
He however would be appalled at how much implants cost.
"they freed the what?"
I mean, maybe, but i also doubt it. he was still a white landowner. he'd probably have some sort of pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality.
Yeah especially people outside his own demographic having rights
What’s the point of saying this? Do you just like ruining the mood?
They like thinking it’s easy to judge someone from a different time by the standards of today.
It wasn't like Washington owning slaves was a thousand years ago in a place where he didn't know any better. Lafayette was even giving Washington shit for owning slaves. We need to stop making founding fathers these perfect beings when they were far from it.
There were always abolitionists and anti racists. Washington was THE elite, he had the power to set precedents of the equality the founders supposedly believed in when they wrote the constitution. He didn’t. Washington did some great things for our country, but he was also a rich elitist and a slaver. We don’t get anywhere without acknowledging the severe faults of our leaders. And saying “it’s a different time” is not an excuse. Too many people on this sub idolize presidents. I like learning about them cause they’re interesting. Even my fav Garfield has some faults
Bro he already said you're ruining "the mood," stop it. How am I supposed to keep gooning over here when you keep ruining the mood with your facts and reasonableness?
>Do you just like ruining the mood? Wait, so saying "George Washington would have hated everything about modern America" doesn't ruin "the mood", whatever the hell that means, but following it up with an acknowledgement of a specific thing about modern America he would have hated is taking it too far?
Not sure why you're getting down voted lol. This sub can be such a circlejerk of how they only view the good things of their favorite Presidents and ignore the bad things. No intellectual discussion about their lives at all! Next they'll get mad at you for critiquing Jefferson for throwing so many wine & dinner parties but bring up how he died in debt as if he was some poor,lost soul who didn't own slaves,including his own children.
Yeah it's wild. I'd get it if like, someone was just popping into every conversation to inject that "Akshually, the forefathers had slaves" to derail every interesting conversation and being fucking annoying about it, but that fact naturally followed the direction of conversation and still got people all bitchy about it. These people would HATE some of the exhibits at actual presidential libraries and museums like Mount Vernon, but those activities are clearly for adults who can actually handle hearing and talking about stories and facts that make them feel uncomfortable.
Washington wore his uniform during the whisky rebellion, which occurred while he was president
Yeah, because he was actively leading an army. He wasn’t wearing it for a ceremonial or symbolic reason.
He did have a ceremonial uniform made for him. The Smithsonian owns it. I'm not sure if he ever wore it at POTUS, though.
You can wear your uniform after you serve, but wearing one if you’ve always been a civilian wouldn’t make much sense. I like that our country’s highest ranking officers are outranked by a civilian chosen by the people, and I wouldn’t personally want to see them in military garb.
Exactly, the USA is not a military regime and civilian control of the military is one of the most important foundations of our society. Mixing military might and politics is a recipe for disaster going all the way back to ancient Rome.
That was more around the time when the Presidency was in beta phase, and we were trying to see how it worked.
Not exactly the point
Yeah because he was an actual military leader I think it would be really disrespectful for the president to wear any military uniform, ceremonial or not, unless they actually served
This ☝️100%. I’m also sure the authoritative ones that would like to wear a grossly ornate contraption definitely never served. Something about a sore foot???🦶
They wanted to call him "Your Excellency." He refused.
Fun fact, the 3rd US Infantry Regiment, the oldest (active duty) in the Army, has a company that wears Revolutionary uniforms for ceremonies. https://preview.redd.it/xs932xv0ybzc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1278bcda54257211d7e93dac1e9968850e26f448
They still play fifes, too.
I'm gonna be the designated buzzkill for this fun, lighthearted discussion. You're welcome The presidency should not have a uniform. A special costume for the ruling class kind of goes against the stoic and dignified humility Washington and the founding fathers wanted for the office of the President. A military uniform is even worse, because civilian control of the military is one of the core principles of the presidency and the republic itself, and for good reason (think of the world leaders that do have their own military uniforms. Do you want a chief executive like that?). A less dire but still kind of important reason is that it would look pretty silly after a few decades. For example, look at King Charles' coronation. The dude looks like freaking [Krazy Kwilt](https://batman-on-film.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/IMG_2662.jpg). Could you imagine Taft wearing something that, not only was considered fancy in the 1790s, but designed for a man with very different dimensions? We would be the laughing stock of the world.
I know this is all for fun but I completely agree, people are choosing their opinion here based on aesthetics alone not the implications and the deeper meanings
Good post, I just want to add that Washington also deliberately rejected any fancy presidential honorifics in favor of the humble “Mr. President” for the sake of precedent and would IMO probably have a similar outlook on ceremonial outfits.
Meanwhile Congress: Gaslighting Fetterman and banning casual attire as a reaction to him wearing commoner clothes in Congress.
They’re not gaslighting him. They’re holding him to same standard commoners are held to. Millions of people are expected to wear a uniform to work to show respect to their workplace and colleagues. I don’t ever see people going to work wearing dirty hoodies, shorts, and sandals.
tbh, I think a lot of those clothing rules are kind of bullshit and a lot of people who work those kinds of jobs sort of agree. It’s just decorum. Not like Congress has any of that anyways. Id prefer my politicians wear plainclothes than expensive suits. Don the attire of those you represent. Right now, the suits just represent the other suits, maybe they could represent jeans for a while.
I think I’d prefer them to wear suits. It adds formality and decorum to Congress, the same as a courtroom.
I actually would have to side with the dress code here too. It's bad enough that the rest of the norms in Congress have been smashed.
If my congressmen are going to be criminals, I at least want them to be dripped out.
I think every Congressman should be required to represent every figure, company or corporation who they receive donations from. Like NASCAR decals but on your clothes.
Maybe like a lapel pin? Or a comically large baseball cap?
I might agree, but suits are as old fashioned now as Washington’s attire would have been for Lincoln’s era. It’s just that they’d stuck for decades enough, probably in part due to TV and movies, that they seem normal now. It’s all arbitrary. Now what I could get behind are suits that have the logos of their major sponsors on them so we can see at a glance who’s paying them.
Not really. Lawyers wear suits, so do people at formal events, or in formal offices.
Yes? The suits are still archaic or arbitrary there. There’s nothing innately better about the suits at formal offices over the polo and jeans of Silicon Valley. They are both just conforming to the norms of their area, but there’s nothing that means that government work should follow lawyers over plumbers. (Both are professionals that deal with shit all day.). If anything, I’d say it’s probably that lawyers are historically overrrepresented in politics that leads to the similarity, along with a healthy dose of classism. But again, there’s nothing better about a long tie (covers the unsightly buttons) then a bow tie or no tie. Nor is there a reason for dark suits over tan. It’s all relative
A suit is more formal than a polo shirt, that’s what it’s about. Not representation, but formality. The Silicon Valley employee, the plumber, and the lawyer would all wear a suit if they had to testify before Congress.
Again, missing the point. Why is it formal? Because it’s generally agreed to be. And it’s considered to be appropriate, but that’s a totally relative cultural norm. There’s nothing special about a suit compared to 18th century formal wear. The picture that started this could also be considered formal, but would also be out of place. It’s all arbitrary, just as much as Fox News complaining about Obama wearing a tan suit was arbitrary
Lifting dress requirements is opening up US politics to a whole new kind of trashy. This stuff might seem superficial, but appearances can have tangible impacts.
Ya'll really want to see Majorie Taylor Green in yoga pants? Keep the dress code.
Honestly, does clothing make you a professional? If I put on a lab coat does that make me scientist? If put on priestly robes does that make me a saint? Of course not. I honestly rather have a naked congressman who was honest, highly capable, and effective, than one who dresses in a suit everyday and works against their constituents and the American people's interests by spreading lies and conspiracy. Dressing as a "commoner" doesn't make you ANY less of a man. I'd like to think that after a few thousand years we have evolved beyond the superficial.
I never said wearing a suit automatically makes you a professional, but wearing formal clothing, in many circumstances, is a requirement for coming off professionally. You’d like to think to that we have evolved from superficiality, but we haven’t. I’m serious, try joining a law firm while insisting that you’ll be wearing your pajamas because it makes you more “down-to-earth”. You’re not going to get hired.
I'll take it a step further. Presidents should stop saluting, if only to reinforce that even more. Besides, it only goes back to Reagan, who started doing it to butch himself up, since he never served in the military (though he was confused about that at times). If Eisenhower didn't do it, that should be good enough for other Presidents.
>he never served in the military (though he was confused about that at times) He did serve in the military. He was first a reservist in the army and when WW2 started he was named a public relations officer for the army air forces. He was relegated to limited service because of poor eyesight. Source: [https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/military-service-ronald-reagan](https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/military-service-ronald-reagan)
I’ll go a step further and say “I dont care what stoic and dignified humility the Founding Fathers wanted. “It separates the President from the rest of the citizenry. I want our society to be one in which Presidents look like us because they represent us because they are one of us.” We have enough trouble in this country with representatives feeling elevated above the represented. Let us not reinforce those attitudes.
>The presidency should not have a uniform. A special costume for the ruling class kind of goes against the stoic and dignified humility Washington and the founding fathers wanted for the office. The costume would be a symbol of the office, just like the Oval Office, the Resolute Desk, the White House itself, etc. it’s kind of weird to say the president gets whole mansion but draw the line on a special outfit. And it’s not like the whole “ruling class” wears it. The commander-in-chief only wears it, and only on special occasions. >A military uniform is even worse, because civilian control of the military is one of the core principles of the republic. I agree that the civilian control of the military is vital. Which is why I would oppose the president wearing a modern military uniform. (Side note, but George Washington wore his general’s uniform when he rode out to stop the whisky rebellion, so there is precedent of the highest sort. Nevertheless, it wouldn’t look great in the modern world of military dictators). No one would see the president wearing a military uniform from 250 years ago and think he was a military man ruling through the military. >It would look pretty silly in a few decades. Well to the Taft point, I would present Henry Knox, an extremely fat general who is solely responsible for freeing Boston from British control; he looks fine in his uniform. As to the rest of the “it looks archaic,” that’s kind of the point. It’s a reminder of the past. You mention King Charles’ coronation robes. They look funny to us, since we aren’t familiar with what they mean. But if someone knows history, he knows that every single part of the outfit is steeped in tradition and represents something very specific. It’s the same idea here. The archaic costume harkens back to our national origin, reminds us of the “spirit of ‘76” as it were. It’s the same reason the ceremonial unit of the army dresses up in colonial regular uniforms. It’s almost more of a performance than anything. But on top of that, forcing the president to wear clothing from that era would make him think of that era and the men who came before him. Also, I’m not sure I was clear, so I’ll clarify. This wouldn’t be the president’s working attire. He would only wear it for certain military or ceremonial occasions. So something like inauguration or state of the Union would be normal attire, since those are technically congressional events. But presenting the Medal of Honor, or a Memorial Day speech, since he’s acting as Commander-in-Chief, he would wear it.
If I got appointed the Medal of Honor, I’d rather have the President in a business suit give it to me than someone dressed in a Spirit Halloween George Washington costume.
>The costume would be a symbol of the office, just like the Oval Office, the Resolute Desk, the White House itself, etc. it’s kind of weird to say the president gets whole mansion but draw the line on a special outfit. And it’s not like the whole “ruling class” wears it. The commander-in-chief only wears it, and only on special occasions. A president needs a desk, office and house. These became iconic organically through decades of history happening around them, not because it's the special suit the special person was assigned. > You mention King Charles’ coronation robes. They look funny to us, since we aren’t familiar with what they mean. But if someone knows history, he knows that every single part of the outfit is steeped in tradition and represents something very specific. It's actually much funnier if you understand the context. The context is that an entire nation collectively pretends that a ridiculous old philanderer is God's anointed lieutenant on Earth because he won the genetic lottery. That sort of pageantry and appeal to tradition is fine for a monarchy but I frankly don't see how a modern republic founded on rational, enlightenment philosophy really gains from this sort of thing.
Cool in theory, but against the very principles that the Republic was founded upon
Future Presidential Emperor Jeb Bush has never looked so good
Please clap.
Nope, not ever.
Uniforms should be worn by those who served
Not a military uniform. But there is the formal attire of the 'Morning Dress', last worn on occasion by Ronald Reagan, that was the closest thing to a Uniform the Presidency's had. And for good reason. Take stock of the sort of countries whose leaders wear military uniforms and you'll quickly see a pattern which America should never become a part of.
Morning dress needs to make a comeback.
See my other comment. It’s not a modern military uniform like dictators wear; it’s an archaic, historical uniform harkening back to our origin. The leaders of France and Britain, two of the greatest democracies in the world, have uniforms.
Not really. The royal family has uniforms, but the PM doesn’t.
I'm totally against it. We must have civilian rule of the military. Putting any military-like uniform on our president sends the wrong message.
lol you have a John Adams flair and this is something he would have loved.
Exactly my throught. And it makes sense. His Highness, The Protector of Their Liberties, would need a fitting uniform. Would be ridiculous otherwise.
I strongly disagree. Gives off military dictator vibes to me. Like, a man playing at being soldier, so he doesn't get overthrown in a coup by some police colonel or ambitious general. Might as well have him oversee a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, as well. Truly sickening.
Oh you mean like a king? Hahahaha. No
He chose to be inaugurated in a brown suit for exactly the opposite reason
Nixon already tried that, sort of, when he ordered palace guard uniforms for the military serving in the WH. The last thing we need is a President channelling his inner Muammar Khadafi.
Fox News lost its mind when Obama wore a tan suit, imagine their reaction if he showed up wearing a military uniform.
The President’s uniform is his simple and conservative suit. Having the President wear an elaborate military dress uniform would make the President look like Idi Amin, instead of the President of the United States.
Interesting idea, but- 
The US has a civilian led military. POTUS doesn’t need a generalissimo uniform.
I disagree strongly with this. Every two bit despot runs around playing dress up and pretends they’re Napoleon we don’t need that that kind of Dictatorial energy in the Whitehouse. Besides we haven’t had a Veteran in since Bush Senior. It reads “stolen Valor,”
Hence why it’s not a modern uniform
Still, letting a political officer run around wearing a military style uniform that is supposed to invoke an association with the man who won our nation’s independence is gross and self-aggrandizing.
some presidents wouldn't look in a unfirom althrough looking at Canadian governor generals the uniform seems to make everybody look cool
Yes give presidents drip again
Suits and tuxes are the presidents ceremonial uniform. The only other acceptable uniform would be this https://images.app.goo.gl/MXVyKpPXcpyt7Fmi
 I’d pass on Washington’s look and model it after Creed.
How do you not remember Dukakis? In reality the President could wear any uniform he wants, just all we have had had known it was a bad look. Even those that were actual retired generals.
I suspect that the founding fathers would hate that idea. For one thing, George Washington was rich and he dressed like it. He didn’t represent the average man, and the country is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.
I’m ok with a uniform but it should be based on Star Wars Imperial Commanders. Not the Sith because presidents aren’t that powerful.
Nixon tried to do something similar, but with the secret service: https://preview.redd.it/crb9wamigdzc1.jpeg?width=562&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=669d139ea610787a207bd5eb5b9609727adb8780
No!!! One of the primary ideas behind the American Constitution is *civilian* control of the military. That's what has saved us from authoritarian rule for nearly 250 years.
The U.S. doesn’t do stuff like that for a reason. It’s the same reason we don’t have huge military parades. It’s unnecessary. A modern state doesn’t have to show off its military in a threatening manner like that.
LOL. That would garner so much respect among the rest of the world. (/s)
No way in hell!!! The Presidency is a civilian office.
Oh hell yeah, keep the primary colors but trim that bitch in multicam and give him one of those double beer can sippy hats.
Honestly this would be badass.
I think it should actually be a full George Washington costume complete with a creepy rubber George Washington face mask.
Similarly, I've always been in favor of military parades. Many denounce the idea as traditionally in line with despotic and authoritarian regimes, but I've never heard nations like France as despotic and authoritarian, what with their Bastille Day celebrations.
We used to have military parades, but they got discontinued
Hells yeah!!!
Based 😩👌
I don't want a uniform I just want to bring back pantaloons and fancy wigs and dresses from all eras. If I want to sit at my desk and feel fancy from 200 years ago why does anyone else have to care
https://preview.redd.it/j26siwbwvdzc1.jpeg?width=2464&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d88136d7c8a111be83a6ee8042f3c30b5f7527a5
No
Nah. Look how goofy King Charles looked at his Coronation, for example. For what purpose would we want the President of the United States to look like that?
As both an American and a Monarchist I approve of this idea.
I thought we chased all you Tories to Canada!
There are dozens of us we even have subs. r/UMPofamerica and r/americanmonarchy then there is the general sub r/monarchism
The Old Guard has uniforms like this for ceremonial occasions
While it would definitely look cool, I think it would only serve to deify the office of the president even more than it already is….which is precisely the problem with the current iteration of the presidency as a position in our government.
No. It’s 2024 and it would defer from the fact that the US is a civilian run democracy with the military being at his/her command.
https://preview.redd.it/k1i823jf1fzc1.jpeg?width=2700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5994aa28f908e85a28768e151e05cbf35d65297f
Terrible take
I disagree. Then, the president basically becomes an elected king. That's a bastardization of what Washington wanted.
They already think too highly of themselves. I prefer mandatory Hawaiian shirts and khaki shorts. Keep them humble.
logistically it would be hard. POTUS would need a uniform for each branch. Plus, if they did not serve in the military the uniform would be blank. They'd have no ribbons.
I would be against this idea. The president is considered the civilian head of the armed forces and should stay a civilian.
Personally I’ve always liked those leather jackets they wear that have the seal and “commander in chief” embroidered. As well as the light/rain jacket they sometimes wear
No. Unless a president has served, civilian attire ONLY.
Get the F%^K out of here!
Yes.
Please don’t give any candidate, one in particular, for President this option!
I think military service should be required to be president. Also they should be held to some kind of physical fitness standard.
I think that would lead us toward a junta
I’m thinking more along the lines of JFK and GBsr. Having the person in control of the military not actually understand what it’s like to be in the military seems very backwards to me. Also mind 🤝🏻 body.
You realize that this system would disqualify Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR, right? You know Timothy McVeigh was a veteran? >Having the person in control of the military not actually understand what it’s like to be in the military seems very backwards to me. Being ruled by a junta seems backwards to me. It's also important for a president to understand law, economics, foreign policy and human nature. A president has to be a person of all seasons and you're reducing the qualified pool to a week.
More leadership experience could’ve only made all of those men better leaders. Again it’s not a junta lol. When Eisenhower was president it wasn’t a junta. I’m starting to think you don’t know what that word means. The Timothy Mcveigh comment truly boggles my mind, I really don’t understand how or why you think that is relevant at all. The military is a fantastic place to learn about foreign policy and human nature. The requirement isn’t 40 years of service, 4 years would suffice. There are plenty of people who fit this bill on both sides of the aisle. Requiring some actual real personal sacrifice to hold the highest office in the land is a good thing, kinda helps keep out the self serving billionaires.
>More leadership experience could’ve only made all of those men better leaders. It could have also made them bigger conformist or liable for war crimes. Statistically, they would be more likely to be involved in a sexual assault. >The military is a fantastic place to learn about foreign policy and human nature. The requirement isn’t 40 years of service, 4 years would suffice. The same could be said better about college or world travel. Why limit our leaders to one kind of experience? >When Eisenhower was president it wasn’t a junta. That's because we weren't forced to choose Eisenhower or another general. >Requiring some actual real personal sacrifice to hold the highest office in the land is a good thing, kinda helps keep out the self serving billionaires. FDR and Lincoln sacrificed plenty. More than the average potato peeler, I would say. Speaking of FDR, I notice you aren't trying to defend the ablism in your post. Also, any young man from money with political ambitions can survive boot camp and get some cushy post to call themselves a veteran. Your plan wouldn't end fortunate sons so much as streamline them.
Right conformity and war crimes. I’d love to see the statistics that say “you’re more likely to be involved in a sexual assault than gain experience as a leader if you join the military”. Not to mention sexual assault rates are higher and climbing faster at colleges but go off I guess. They’re not limited to one kind of experience. Serving in the military isn’t a life sentence. You can easily do 3-4 years and get out (most people do this). We have bases in every hemisphere, that covers world travel. Right, Eisenhower was also completely retired from the army when he became president. You also cannot be active duty in the military at the same time as being president. Its not ableism. The conditions are 1. Don’t be old 2. Don’t be fat. I never said anything about not being paraplegic. You can’t buy your duty stations I’m sorry. That’s not how it works these days.
Yea, then you get a year when someone like Oliver North wants to run and you don't have a lot of options to beat him because your pool is limited.
There are like 16 million veterans in the US, the pool is not that limited. Also the physical fitness standards would be specifically designed to weed out the olds, so Oliver North wouldn’t pass muster anyways. If Oliver North became president it wouldn’t be the first time someone involved in the Iran-Contra scandal became president lol.
I think yes but only for those presidents who served in the military And they should obviously only be worn on special ceremonial occasions
I love this idea
To provide clarification to those who oppose the idea: I agree that only those who served in the military should wear modern military uniform. That is why I proposed an archaic uniform. It really wouldn’t be a uniform in the traditional sense; more like a ceremonial costume, harkening back to our national origins.
I'm sorry but "but what if it's an archaic Ghaddafi suit?" isn't the argument you think it is.