Politicians work hard every day to make us lose respect for them. H.L. Mencken was a visionary, for it is truer now than when he said it: “Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.” Nevertheless, they are public servants, whether they like it or not. They represent us; they represent our territories; they extend our will to the place where decisions are made (I’m not talking about the nightclubs in Washington, D.C.). Turning up at the Senate dressed as you would to go burning ATMs at a BLM rally is disrespectful. It’s ungainly too. But above all, it is disrespectful to the institution and what it stands for. Bending the Senate’s civility to the particularly bad taste of certain wayward senators is the best metaphor for why the West is going to hell.

There is no longer a dress code in the U.S. Senate. Actually, there hasn’t been since a male senator was first allowed to dress like a woman on the job. And that was just the beginning. Look, predictably, a collective is growing around the world that claims to feel canine, and they demand their right to dress like dogs, bark, pee in the street, and chase kittens. We may well have six men dressed as dogs in the Senate soon. As far as the barking is concerned, I don’t think we will notice much difference from the majority of senators. But aside from that, now let’s say, officially, that the Senate’s usual and implicit formal etiquette has been abolished. (READ MORE: Yes, Furries Are Gay)

I am already hearing the useful fools saying that this issue is unimportant, that what matters is inflation. Inflation is important — indeed, very important. But the loosening of dress codes in the Senate is a crucial issue because it culturally dismantles any reverence that we may have felt for the upper chamber since the Founding Fathers. And if we no longer respect the institution, we lay open the door to a lawless nation, which we will not respect either.

The clothes we wear speak not only of who we are but, fundamentally, of the respect we feel for others. That’s the whole point of clothing, which is just a by-product of personal cleanliness. In fact, we wash for ourselves, of course, but, more than that, we do it for others. The smell of a dead platypus is something that disgusts everyone in the vicinity, but not the platypus itself. 

Something similar happens with clothing. We don’t walk to the office in the nude because, among other things, other normal people shouldn’t have to put up with our exposed attributes, some better, some worse, but all attributes nonetheless. Maybe if it were only for us, we would do it, because it would be nice to sit in a meeting for six hours and have some ventilation between our legs. So personal preference is irrelevant when it comes to showing up for a certain job that requires a certain etiquette. If you don’t want to wear a suit, don’t become a politician or a businessman — or would you rather be Hugo Chávez? I believe that the main reason we despised Chávez, even before his disgusting communism, was because we were incapable of respecting any leader who chooses to wear an ’80s heroin addict’s tracksuit.

Sen. John Fetterman, who dislikes wearing a suit, applauded Chuck Schumer’s anticipated move. Fetterman often goes to work dressed as if he just came from a baseball game and, along with other Democrats, has pushed to eliminate business-suit attire in the Senate. Of course, this only affects politicians, as all other workers, including interns, are still required to wear suits and ties, for the guys, and business attire, for the women. I guess it is a way of letting them know who is in charge here — and, by the way, showing their contempt for the working class, who will now be forced to contemplate the horrible Sunday outfits in which many illustrious senators will be going to work.

Inflation is important. But this is more significant. The Left has long understood something that the Right has not yet grasped: He who names things has power over them. That is why the Left keeps inventing words and renaming old concepts to appropriate them. Clothing, after all, is a form of non-verbal expression. Whoever wins this battle of appearance communication also acquires the right to decide what should be solemn and what should not. And the Senate is no longer solemn.

The political class is working hard to undermine itself. Since clothes represent the respect we feel for the people around us, the only ones who should be allowed to attend the Senate with their asses hanging out are the voters. 

Translated by Joel Dalmau.