Well, I’ve been nice to Ann lately, but as she does sometimes, she botched her analysis of this story badly, and attention should be paid. I’ll have Ann’s words in italics, and my comments without them…

Ann wrote, beginning with the NPR quote, “The Senate’s move to relax its unofficial dress code has led to a surprising development: an official dress code,”

“It’s not the way it always goes, but it shows the risk of seeking a new rule. You may end up with a reinforcement of the old rule. More precisely, it shows the risk of ending the enforcement of an informal practice. It led to the formalization of the old practice into an official rule.”

Why is that a “risk”? The risk of ending the enforcement of an old rule is that the consequences the old rule was designed to prevent occur. There were reasons for the old rule, and as Herman Kahn once told me, people have a tendency to take traditions and standards for granted after a while, forget why they existed, and have to learn, often painfully, all over again. That’s what happened here. As the Ethics Alarms motto goes, “When ethics fails, the law steps in.” Fetterman was unethical, and Schumer, rather than being a responsible leader and telling him to shape up, eliminated the ethical standard he was breaching instead.

“In this case, the change that backfired was all about accommodating one person, John Fetterman, a man with mental problems — he was recently hospitalized for depression. It is, it seems, especially important to him to wear hoodies and gym shorts, and what is the big deal? Let the unfortunate man have what he seems somehow to need.”

Who has credibly claimed that Fetterman’s “mental problems,” the result of a stroke, are alleviated by his dressing like a slob? Fetterman dressed like that before his stroke, and it’s obvious that he indulges himself now because he’s a hulking lug who’s uncomfortable in a suit and tie. “Unfortunate man”???? Fetterman is a fortunate member of a distinguished and privileged body because he didn’t have the integrity to withdraw when he became physically disabled, and because he and his campaign lied about the severity of his condition. He deserves no special considerations.

“But he’s in one party, and there’s the other party, and it was a ripe opportunity to drag out the age-old argument: What if everybody did that?”

That’s not a “ripe old argument,” it’s Kant’s Principle of Universality and an ethics alarms check that the Democrats foolishly ignored. The Republicans were protecting the dignity, image and societal obligations of a national institution…as the Democrats ultimately did, over-ruling their leader.

“And we easily picture the Senate full of unlovable oldsters dressed as if they’re about to attend a backyard barbecue. Can’t have that. And so, John Fetterman must be forced into a suit and tie, at whatever cost to his fragile mind.”

What’s a mind that fragile doing in the U.S. Senate? Fetterman is being “forced” into meeting the standards of the body he voluntarily joined, with all the commitments and obligations that required. Poor baby! This post by Althouse has me worried about her fragile mind.

“They even resorted to teasing him, calling the new rule “The SHORTS Act” (for “SHow Our Respect To the Senate”). That resolution was introduced by Mitt Romney (along with Joe Manchin). Mitt Romney, teasing a man with mental problems?”

Fetterman deserved every bit of “teasing” he received. If I showed up to do an ethics seminar dressed like Fetterman, I’d be more than teased, I’d be fired. This wasn’t teasing, it was pointed criticism of conduct, not “mental problems” And what is “Mitt Romney, teasing a man with mental problems?” supposed to mean? It sound like some kind of a Golden Rule rebuke, but I can find no record of Romney either suffering from “mental problems” (unless you count Trump Derangement) or advocating for people with metal problems to be elected to Congress.

“Fetterman still has the option of standing in the doorway in his hoodie and shorts and participating without entering the room.”

Oh, yeah, good idea, Ann. Wow.

Good thing they got that done… as a symbol of all the things they haven’t got done.

Cheap shot, and a dumb one. The silliness was a symbol of how progressives too often think: if a rule or law is inconvenient for an ally , eliminate or ignore it.

Addendum to the Addendum: After I wrote this, I checked what Ann’s commenters said. Almost unanimously, their reaction echoed mine. For example..

“–And so, John Fetterman must be forced into a suit and tie, at whatever cost to his fragile mind.”

Maybe what this is telling us is that John Fetterman should never have been a U.S. Senator. As for his mind, I’m sure it can handle a different wardrobe. But slobs just want to be slobs.

Let him be a slob at home, but if he wants to be a Senator, he should live up to the role. It might improve his mind.

That’s a sharp group. There’s got to be some way to get them to visit Ethics Alarms…