No constitutional compromise in pursuit of happy sartorial values!

One of the first things I read this morning was Steny Hoyer’s accusation that Tea Party supporters have unhappy families:

There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families. All of you have been in families: single-parent, two-parents, whatever. Multiple parent and a stepfather. The fact is life is about trying to reach accommodation with one another so we can move forward. That is certainly what democracy is about. So if we are going to move forward compromise is necessary.

And as if that’s not bad enough, the unhappy Tea Party Family is being blamed for something even worse — the bizarre idea that the Constitution somehow has “relevance“:

As we reported this morning, House Republicans will kick-start the 112th Congress tomorrow with a spirited recitation of the Constitution, a document whose recent relevance is due largely to the ideological and sartorial interests of the Tea Party.

Sartorial interests? I have lost track of the number of Tea Party meetings and events I’ve attended, and depending on the occasion, I have worn anything from a T-shirt and blue jeans to a suit and tie. While I like to be creative where it comes to ideas, it has never occurred to me that what I wear is of constitutional dimension in any way. (Other than perhaps in the general sense that freedom of expression under the First Amendment means citizens have the right to wear what they want.)

The word “sartorial” connotes tailoring. Try as I might, I simply cannot come up with any sort of sartorial generalization about Tea Party people. Here in Michigan, they seem to dress like most of the other people I see running around, but a majority of them don’t hesitate to put on nice clothes when the occasion calls for it. There’s no formal dress code, but from personal experience I can truthfully relate that when I have been with Tea Party people at the State Capitol in pursuit of their goals, the majority of them (myself included) try to show respect for the occasion and look respectable in the presence of government officials. This does not strike me as being of any particular sartorial significance, though. Nothing especially exciting or unusual about it.

How what Tea Party people wear connects to the relevance of the Constitution leaves me feeling completely baffled. Unless there is a sartorial subtext I’m missing, I’m clueless. (Perhaps someone can explain what I might be missing.)

Sorry to sound so boring.

Hmmm….

I think I need to sex up this post.

Hey now, how about some happy family values, with sartorial splendor supplied by the fashionable Ramones!

UPDATE: M. Simon wanted lyrics, and by the gods, he gets ’em!

We’re a happy family
We’re a happy family
We’re a happy family
Me mom and daddy

Siting here in Queens
Eating refried beans
We’re in all the magazines
Gulpin’ down thorazines

We ain’t got no friends
Our troubles never end
No Christmas cards to send
Daddy likes men

Daddy’s telling lies
Baby’s eating flies
Mommy’s on pills
Baby’s got the chills

I’m friends with the President
I’m friends with the Pope
We’re all making a fortune
Selling Daddy’s dope

Oh, the nostalgia!

To think that was all the way back in 1977.

Those damn traditional values just keep a-cummin, don’t they?


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

5 responses to “No constitutional compromise in pursuit of happy sartorial values!”

  1. Sarah Avatar
    Sarah

    I think they mean the people who dress like Minute Men. (Yes, I know this is a tenuous link to the constitution, but it’s from around the same time and history clearly makes their heads hurt.) This brings me the question of what loyalties THEIR sartorial values at their demonstrations reveal: “We’re all big headed puppets, occasionally sporting Hitler moustaches”?
    We are a constitutional republic last I checked. If the constitution isn’t relevant, what is?

  2. Veeshir Avatar
    Veeshir

    I think you’re giving the writer too much credit.
    It’s just a big word he’s heard used derisively about someone “Sartorial splendor“, so he figured it would fit and people would think he was smart for using a big word.

  3. M. Simon Avatar

    A link to the lyrics would be nice. I blame bad miking and poor enunciation.

  4. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    Ask and ye shall receive: Lyrics
    Not that you really want to know…

  5. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    I’m okay with compromise, but the leftist definition of compromise seems to be submission to their demands.
    Even when they do settle for a true compromise, in which both sides make concessions, it always has an expiration date, and they return with their tyrannical demands.
    Apparently, a leftist’s word is no good.
    That’s because she considers a unilateral change of mind to be her prerogative.