MetaChat - Dress Code for White House Visitors?

There's only one solution: when visiting the White House, don't dress at all.

posted by jonmc 30 July | 13:20

Does anyone remember the "scandalous" photo from a few years ago - I think it was the championship girl's lacrosse team - wearing nice dresses with flip flops!!!! Bush didn't seem to mind so much then. Oh, I found it.

posted by muddgirl 30 July | 13:25

I remember a flap a few years ago when some college women's sports team wore flip-flops to a White House visit, and I thought it was the dumbest fucking thing I'd ever heard. Of course someone would see fit to institutionalize the dumbfuckery.

posted by cobra! 30 July | 13:26

"When the Clintons came in, all hell broke loose" in terms of dress code -- and perhaps other things? -- one current aide said. "We're just trying to get things back on track."

And flip-flops have always been verboten. "As you know, this administration has a strong record against flip-flops," said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore.

Words fail.

posted by appidydafoo 30 July | 13:27

Sorry, all our Outrage Representatives are currently working on the proposed NYC photography permits, and will be with you as soon as possible.

posted by Triode 30 July | 13:28

This dress code isn't even just for people who are meeting the President, it also includes tour groups. Tour groups! Maybe it's the former tour guide in me who's hyperventilating, but for heaven's sake, it's not the Vatican. Bush is not god. Shoulders and knees and toes do not need to be covered in some act of humility. ARGH.

posted by occhiblu 30 July | 13:36

That photo permit thing is lovely, too. ARGH.

I repeat: ARGH.

posted by occhiblu 30 July | 13:37

I dunno, I think the rules sound fine- it's not like they're setting the dress code for the White House way past the standards of a great deal of offices, schools, etc.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 30 July | 13:39

Maybe it's the former tour guide in me who's hyperventilating,

Where were you a tour guide? That job sounds alternately horrifying and delightful to me, mostly depending on the place.

posted by jonmc 30 July | 13:40

the Vatican

When I was there in 2002, I saw dozens of people from a cruise ship frantically buying potato-sack-like khakis emblazoned with a sassy purple ROMA! on the side because they'd showed up at St. Peter's Basilica looking like they were off to a bike race or a hike across the Alps...it was hilarious watching them try to argue with the extremely well-dressed guards.

posted by mdonley 30 July | 13:44

I was a guide in Venice.

TPS, the dress code's fine for people who are working there, who are being paid by the people setting the dress code. But I really have an issue with requiring visitors to dress a certain way, especially when they're on paid tours. It's basically saying "The general American taxpayer has no business entering the White House, which, by the way, is actually owned by the taxpayers, and the people setting this policy are, in fact, servants of said taxpayers."

I hate how sloppily people dress these days, but I don't think that excuses such a giant "Fuck y'all, we don't serve you" from the White House.

posted by occhiblu 30 July | 13:44

It was hilarious watching them try to argue with the extremely well-dressed guards.

You know, the first that came to mind was that we'd have to hire Swiss guards to stand in front of the White House. Floppy hats and all. :-)

posted by occhiblu 30 July | 13:45

I was a guide in Venice.

ah. I was thinking more of say a sports hall of fame or a cnady factory. that would be neat.

posted by jonmc 30 July | 13:47

I don't know about a candy factory.... I would imagine too many screaming children in that one.

San Marco doesn't let people in who have bare knees, so I'm kind of used to the tour-guide dance of "Can I take this group into one of the major attractions today, or will we be talking about it from outside," but it's a church. It's not making any pretense of being owned, or even influenced, by its users. It in fact is trying to send the opposite message, that all those who enter are puny and unworthy and must humble themselves and observe the proper rituals when confronting God in his house.

I don't like the parallels here.

posted by occhiblu 30 July | 13:52

I dunno, I think the dress code sounds pretty reasonable. To me it's more about respect for the White House and its history, as well as what it represents to the nation.

It would offend ME to see people walking around in there in shorts and flip-flops, so I like the dress code for that reason, not out of any respect to our idiot-king who happens to be living there right now.

posted by BoringPostcards 30 July | 13:56

I don't know about a candy factory.... I would imagine too many screaming children in that one.

Heh. I was once in this place buying sweets. In the downstairs area there's a room for kids to have birthday parties and this conga line of sugared up kids snaked out the door sing 'cha-cha-cha' off key. I wasn't sure whether to run in terror or join them.

posted by jonmc 30 July | 13:58

Flipflops are prohibited, but not Crocs? WTF.
If they're trying to maintain an image of professionalism, they already lost it when they sent the dress code e-mail: "The e-mail reminder was all in capital letters."

posted by casarkos 30 July | 14:02

Has anyone mentioned yet that this dress code might be a form of economic (or class-based, or something) discrimination?

And was it Andrew Jackson who, upon being elected, had a big booze-soaked, open-to-the-public party in the White House?

posted by box 30 July | 14:08

When in doubt, blame Clinton.

posted by klangklangston 30 July | 14:14

I want to be outraged but seeing that photo permit thing sucked all my resources up.

If you need me I'll be in my room with the lights off.

posted by CitrusFreak12 30 July | 14:14

Has anyone mentioned yet that this dress code might be a form of economic (or class-based, or something) discrimination?

I've seen the point made elsewhere. And I certainly agree that it reeks of a "Turn away the unwashed masses" sentiment more appropriate coming from Louis XVI's Versailles.

(And yes, I know I'm being hyperbolic in general on this, but I do believe it's a deeply undemocratic gesture. Which should probably not surprise me, but I'm beginning to lean toward a "What the hell would it actually take to get the American public up in arms about anything?" malaise, probably exacerbated by having to be in airports over the weekend.)

posted by occhiblu 30 July | 14:40

I'm with BoringPostcards. The White House is a place where a person's clothes should show respect for their location. The guidelines issued still leave quite a lot of room for someone to be comfortable, casual, etc.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 30 July | 14:40

Now, airports, there's a topic I will march on Washington for! They are a freakin' mess.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 30 July | 14:42

The White House is a place where a person's clothes should show respect for their location.

I agree with that, actually, but I still just think it's deeply problematic for the American government to be forcing a dress code on the American people (I know it also applies to foreigners, but still).

One should dress appropriately for one's environment, but that's an etiquette issue. The government enforcing a dress code is not an etiquette issue in the way that a private club, or employer, doing so is, a way of saying "You must look like one of us in order to be one of us"; that is, if you dress up to go into a club, it's with the intention of blending in with the others there.

Tourists on guided tours of the White House are certainly not attempting to look like elected officials. This dress code is more about paying respect to the people working there -- which, when it's required rather than freely given, is a problem.

Especially given how ridiculously and crassly inappropriate both Cheney and Bush have been with regards to the etiquette of their offices. Bush manhandles other world leaders, Cheney shows up to international public observances looking like he's in the Alaskan wilderness. These people have no class and no respect for others, and this sort of idiotic "Bow before us" middle-school-principal rule-enforcement tactic just highlights that.

posted by occhiblu 30 July | 14:53

The White House is a place where a person's clothes should show respect for their location.

A vote for flip-flops is a vote for anarchy! They can take our skorts, but they can never take our freedom! It silliness. Shorts don't signify anything on a tourist, except perhaps that they're from the US.

posted by muddgirl 30 July | 14:53

I'll show respect for the White House when the people in the White House show respect for my rights.

posted by drezdn 30 July | 14:58

"Respect for location" is like "respect for the office;" a completely invented line of reasoning steeped in pretend history used to justify the demand of respect by those who deserve none.

Visitors to Independence Hall in Philly or the battlefield graveyard at Gettysburg or the steps of the Lincoln Memorial aren't required to wear clothes that "show respect" for the real historical events that transpired there and shaped our common destiny; the current president, worthy of no respect whatever, is crowing that the White House is some hallowed ground? A president should know better. So should a citizen.

posted by Hugh Janus 30 July | 15:01

Well said, Hugh.

posted by box 30 July | 15:23

First they give us global warming, then they take our shorts away!

Worst. Administration. Etc.

posted by Atom Eyes 30 July | 15:26

I guess one's feelings on this boils down to whether you consider the White House to be a symbol of the current president, or a symbol of the nation. I claim it as a symbol of all us, as Americans, and therefore feel it deserves at least a minimal level of respect. YMMV, etc etc.

posted by BoringPostcards 30 July | 15:37

what's really awesome is that once upon a time an actual revolution was started because americans didn't like to have to bow for their King.

posted by matteo 30 July | 15:43

I don't think it's a symbol of anything (I mean, I do, but not in this case). I think it's owned by the American public, and forbidding them access to it (as this administration has done again and again, against historical precedent) is about the most anti-democratic gesture a president could make.

posted by occhiblu 30 July | 15:44

(and by the way, Bush should be happy at this point that people still care to visit the place he's living in. he shouldn't be picky about their attire, esp since, as others have said, he's a peculiarly badly-dressed man himself)

posted by matteo 30 July | 15:46

At all the other Symbols of the Nation, dress codes don't exist.

You don't have to put on one of those funny green skirts to cover your legs while watching Congress or the Supreme Court.

This is just one of those moves to extend the reach of the executive branch (not satisfied with just extending WH reach into the other branches of government, now the administration seeks to extend its reach into your hearts and minds), not to mention a brazen bid to remind the voting public of the besmirched Clinton name. "When the Clintons came in, all hell broke loose" is as transparent as it is false.

Don't be a sucker for their line, or you'll end up flopping on the deck, brained with a hammer, and broiled with lemon, capers, and lots of butter, yum! Those fuckers will eat your heart right there on the boat.

posted by Hugh Janus 30 July | 15:50

and forbidding them access to it (as this administration has done again and again, against historical precedent) is about the most anti-democratic gesture a president could make

I've already said this on MeFi, but something that deeply impressed this foreigner many years ago when I visited DC for the first time was how people could actually pretty easily go visit pretty much everything -- White House, Pentagon, FBI, Congress -- because it wasn't like something done out of kindness by some higher power (ie, the government), but it was a normal thing, citizens/taxpayers checking out their employees workplaces

I was really, really impressed.

I also ate breakfast quite a lot at the Supreme Court cafeteria, and it was pretty good, and I once had breakfast with Harry Blackmun there.

posted by matteo 30 July | 15:53

We should just be thankful that they left out Bush's request for "NO FATTIES".

posted by mullacc 30 July | 15:54

Fatheads, on the other hand, are welcome.

posted by jonmc 30 July | 15:58

C'mon guys, nation building is hard work!

posted by Hugh Janus 30 July | 16:02

Count me among those who are fundamentally anti-dress-code (hey, I grew up in the '60s) and find this particular example to be especially ludicrous. No question, the funniest part is the "no sneakers" stipulation. I mean -- buh? The tourists visiting the White House are on tour, and this implies they are doing a lot of walking. The hell are they supposed to be wearing--pumps??

posted by kat allison 30 July | 16:20

We should just be thankful that they left out Bush's request for "NO FATTIES".

That actually occurred to me too.

Count me in with the anti-dress code folks. And good point about the sneakers, katallison.

posted by Specklet 30 July | 16:36

Don't focus on the dress code. It's a sacrificial anode to draw your attention away from the real atrocities.

posted by plinth 30 July | 19:18

Oh, I have plenty of attention. I'm good at multitasking my outrage.

posted by occhiblu 30 July | 19:28

Here's my proposal: When those politicians show up for election photo-ops "with fellow Americans" at the Iowa BBQs and what-not, let's turn their penny-loafered, khakis-and-collared-shirt asses away, and tell them to come back when they're properly dressed in t-shirt and sneakers. And be rude & slow about it - keep them sweating, away from the comfort of their air-conditioned guvmint-issue Town Cars and Suburbans.

Tourists in DC in July are going to be wearing tanktops, shorts and flip-flops. I'd bet an entire peninsula-shaped state worth of electoral votes on that fact.

All this reminds me of a ringer t-shirt my dad used to wear back in the late 70's (a shirt which would prolly now sell for $200 in an ironic hipster second-hand boutique, but I digress) It had line-art drawing of an RV, and a quote from the founder of Winnebago:

"You Can't Take Sex, Booze, or Weekends Away from the American People."

posted by Triode 30 July | 19:36

I'm with BoringPostcards. The White House is a place where a person's clothes should show respect for their location.

If your clothes are good enough to stand between the Wright Flyer and Apollo 11's Columbia, they're good enough for the White House.

If your clothes are good enough to stand before Dali's Last Supper, they're good enough for the White House.

If your clothes are good enough to look at the actual no-shit Constitution and Declaration of Independence, they're good enough for the White House.

If your clothes are good enough to stand before the actual Star-Spangled Banner from Fort McHenry, they're good enough for the White House.

posted by ROU Xenophobe 30 July | 22:52

I don't remmeber offhand, but I think I wore jeans during my Reagan-era visit freshman year.

I remember reading an anecdote about something Teddy Roosevelt said to his kids (who were the Bush Twins of their day); something on the order of: for the next several years, this is our home, but it does not belong to us. Therefore, one must not, repeat: MUST NOT throw spitballs at the portrait of Andrew Jackson.

The most famous quote he made about his kids was: "I can either be president of the United States or I can control Alice. I can not do both."

God knows the outcome of this dictatorship. I love the UK, but what I am is a USAian. " My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right"---Carl Schurz.

posted by brujita 31 July | 00:19

Nice to see even the US administration doesn't dicriminate against burkhas, veils and turbans.

posted by urbanwhaleshark 31 July | 14:05

You can't wear jeans to the Whitehouse? I thought Bush II was the cowboy president?

But the NYC permit thing is outrageous. What problem are they trying to address with the requirements? It seems to be specifically designed to give the police power to harass people. People who may be engaged in constitutionally protected activities.

posted by Mitheral 31 July | 17:02

30 July 2007