Clothes Make The Man -- So Is John Fetterman The New Gandhi?

Author’s Note: Autocorrect wreaked havoc with our current title. We could not let it stand.

For a website that writes about history, but also writes about culture, there is nothing we at History Rinse, & Repeat love more than when a story arises that intertwines the two.  Most recently, the world of fashion has spawned just such a story and, while fashion is normally the domain of A.H. Childs, this current story involves a subgengre of couture that is, or at least used to be, in this author’s wheelhouse – athletic wear (This author sports a collection of city commemorative t-shirts from Nike and Adidas stores from around the world, from Shanghai, to Paris, to Hartford, Connecticut).  I am writing, of course, about the controversy of the hour, namely the relaxation of the dress code in the United States Senate, and then the vote to reinstate it, both engendered by the wardrobe tastes of one Senator, John Fetterman.

I write about Senator Fetterman’s fashion choices with a certain trepidation, acknowledging that I may stand accused of trivializing history.  That is not to say that the topic of fashion is trivial; many serious histories of fashion have been written.  Rather, it is because one suspects that history will have little to say about Mr. Fetterman, other than as an item of trivia footnoting the decline of American standards.  As admirable as his openness surrounding his health issues may be, his political accomplishments are in short supply.  It is highly unlikely that any future author will write a revisionist history arguing that the public today underestimated either them or him.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake not to recognize the effect that a choice of wardrobe can have.  Clearly, Mr. Fetterman is making a statement by his choice of clothes.  The problem for him is that, between his complete lack of substantive achievement, and the outright silliness of his chosen garb -- a hooded sweatshirt paired with overlong gym shorts and sneakers – any statement that he is trying to make is rightfully perceived as unserious, if not downright silly.  But that does not mean that wardrobe cannot make a statement that is serious.  History is full of figures that either through their wardrobe or their personal rituals, made an unspoken political statement far more powerful than any spoken one. Hugh Hefner started a societal trend among a generation of men with his bathrobe.  However, among these figures, one stands out, a man whose choice of clothing was unquestionably a significant factor in the demolition of an empire -- Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi’s Path to the Dhoti -- London

To most people, the Gandhi that they know is the one portrayed in the biopic film by Richard Attenborough.  Even though 40 years old, it is still frequently shown in schools.  However, as most agree, the Gandhi of real life was far more interesting, and far more complex, than the one portrayed on the screen.

Gandhi was born to a middle-class family in Gujarat, India.  After attending college in Bombay, he was able to travel to England and to study law at the Inns of Court, becoming, upon graduation, a barrister.  Gandhi’s years in London would have a profound effect upon his later views and activities as a political activist in a number of ways.

First, it cannot be underestimated the effect that Gandhi’s legal training had upon his later years as an activist.  Although the cinematic Gandhi was a philosophical idealist, the real-life Gandhi was, in many respects, a cold-eyed pragmatist. It is interesting, when comparing the life of Gandhi to that of his most famous emulator, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to juxtapose the latter’s background as a minister, with Gandhi’s background as a lawyer.  Gandhi’s knowledge of the law was to play a significant part in his political development.

Second, Gandhi’s time in London coincided with the early stages of the women’s suffrage movement.  At the time, suffragettes employed the tactic they called “passive resistance” to further their political aims.  Gandhi was impressed by their use of non-violence as a political tool, and he respected their courage, enduring arrest and imprisonment for their beliefs.  Ultimately, however, he broke with the suffragettes for their abandonment of non-violence as their movement became increasingly militant.  He also would come to reject the term “passive resistance” as a weapon of the weak, employed not by choice, but by the unavailability of violence.  However, many of the tactics employed by the suffragette movement in England would provide the blueprint for many of his tactics in the future.

Finally, and most significantly, Gandhi, while in London, was taken into the Theosophy movement, an unplanned consequence of his vegetarianism, as many Theosophists also frequented vegetarian restaurants.  Theosophy was a movement founded by Russian émigré Helena Blavatsky that drew from Neoplatonist philosophy and Hindu and Buddhist religious texts.  Theosophists believed that enlightened thinkers originating in Tibet, known as Masters or Mahatmas, cultivated s great wisdom based upon ethics and irrefutable truth -- the “Absolute” -- that would foster brotherhood and peace among the diverse peoples of the world.  Gandhi was a frequent visitor to the Blavatsky Lodge, and Blavatsky revived his interest in Hinduism by reintroducing him to that religion’s religious text, the Bhagavad Gita, which became his guide to life.  A later head of the Theosophical Society, Annie Bessant, would become a leader of the Indian National Congress and the Home Rule movement in India. 

Theosophy in general would influence his advocacy for a pluralistic, undivided India, one that put him at odds not only with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the All-idia Muslim League, but with leading figures of the Congress party.  Gandhi’s vision of a pluralistic India would cost him his life, as he was ultimately assassinated by a Hindu nationalist.

Gandhi’s Path to the Dhoti – South Africa

After his admittance to the bar, Gandhi returned to India to practice law.  His success was indifferent at best, until called upon to represent an Indian merchant  in a litigation in South Africa.  Two events occurred there that precipitated Gandhi’s leap into political activism.  First, appearing in court, he was directed by the judge to remove his turban.  More famously, having purchased a first class ticket on a train, he was forcibly removed from his compartment and thrown off the train at Pietermaritzburg.  One year later, he formed the Natal Indian Congress party.  

Gandhi’s most famous campaign in South Africa was against the Transvaal Asiatic Registration Act, which required all Asians, including Indians and Chinese, to submit to fingerprinting and to carry identity papers with them at all times which were to be produced upon demand by the police or other authorities.  Initially repealed by the British parliament in response to Gandhi’s efforts, it was reinstated in 1908 when South Africa became self-governing.  This precipitated Gandhi’s first campaign of “satyagraha,” or non-violence.  Among the acts encouraged by Gandhi was the burning of identity cards.  The campaign against the Act lasted six years, during which time Gandhi was imprisoned.  Nevertheless, a compromise was finally reached between Gandhi and the leader of South Africa, Jan Smuts.  It is a testament to Gandhi’s character that, despite his differences with Smuts, their relationship remained one of mutual respect.  When Gandhi left the country to return to India, he presented Smuts with sandals he had made himself.  Smuts wore them every summer, and returned them on Gandhi’s seventieth birthday, writing:

“I have worn these sandals for many a summer, even though I may feel that I am not worthy to stand in the shoes of so great a man.  It was my fate to be the antagonist of a man for whom, even then, I had the highest respect.”

During this period, despite his activism, Gandhi remained a loyal servant of the Empire.  He even volunteered to serve the British army in a stretcher-bearing unit in the Boer War.

Gandhi’s Path to the Dhoti – India

As a result of his efforts in South Africa and his campaign of non-violence, Gandhi had become known internationally.  He was asked to return to India to invigorate the Indian National Congress in 1915.  Founded by a British civil servant, the Congress was geared initially to university educated Indians and was, at the time, still an organization primarily of elites.  Gandhi was instrumental in transforming the Congress from a small, select group to a broad national movement.  He organized several, non-violent protests, including one on behalf of indigo growers forced to grow and sell their product to the British, one on behalf of strikers at a mill who were not paid owed bonuses, and one on behalf taxpayers who sought relief because of famine.

Up to this period, Gandhi had still been a supporter of the Empire.  He helped the British recruit in World War I, and, relevant to this article, he had not abandoned Western clothing. Gandhi’s attitude toward Indian independence shifted, however, when Britain reneged on promises of some form of home rule in return for Indians’ efforts in the war, and instead passed the Rowlett Acts which doubled down on continued British control.  Gandhi’s break with Britain became complete after the Jallianwala Bagh (or Amritsar) massacre, vividly portrayed in Attenborough’s film, where Brigadier General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on a crowd of peaceful protesters that included women and children.  There were no consequences for the massacre but, to the contrary, Dyer was commended by the House of Lords.

Gandhi Dons the Dhoti

It was in this context that Gandhi came to his decision to don the dhoti, or loincloth, for which he is most famous.  He launched, as part of his non-cooperation movement, a proposed boycott of British textile goods which, he believed, had destroyed the local production of textiles.  He urged the production of native Indian fabric, or khadi, which could be spun on simple spinning wheels, or charkas.  As part of this movement, Gandhi first simply abandoned western dress for native dress, but then, deciding that he should wear only clothes that the poor masses could afford, adopted the dhoti.  It was his plan to wear the dhoti only for a matter of weeks, but, given the powerful message that it sent, he continued to wear it the rest of his life.

The decision to wear the dhoti was not one of happenstance.  It was taken only after weeks of deliberation and consultation with other leaders of the Congress.  It combined, in one gesture, all of the political messages that Gandhi had absorbed throughout his life and then broadcast -- nationalism, pluralism, non-violence, and simply effective politics.

So influential was this moment in history that the Indian flag originally had a spinning wheel in its center.  When India gained its independence, the country’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had been reluctant to give up his suits and instead created what became known as the Nehru jacket, changed the spinning wheel to the more nationalist Ashoka Chakra, or the "Wheel of Dharma" that represents  the Buddhist path to enlightenment.  However, the echo of the spinning wheel still remains.

Fetterman’s Path to his Gym Shorts

John Fetterman was born to well-to-do parents in Reading, Pennsylvania.  By his own admission, he had an affluent upbringing.  He attended Albright College, and thereafter received an MBA from the University of Connecticut.  He subsequently received another degree from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.  In between his stints in school, he worked in the insurance industry, and also worked for AmeriCorps.

In 2005, he determined to run for the office of mayor in Braddock, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh, which, at the time, had a population of 2,900.  The position of mayor was a part-time job, and Fetterman was supported by his family, who provided him with an allowance until he was in his late forties.  He rarely attended city council meetings. 

Fetterman achieved some level of fame through his efforts to recruit residents from around the country to relocate to Braddock.  He was successful in establishing a celebrity restaurant and an organic food garden.  Fetterman’s campaign, however it helped Braddock, had the added effect of raising his national profile.  He was featured in the New York Times, appeared on the Colbert Report, and was dubbed “America’s coolest mayor” by the Guardian.  Nevertheless, Fetterman’s campaign does not appear to have done much for Braddock.  By 2020, its population had declined to little more than 1700, a drop of 40%.

In 2019, Fetterman became Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania and was most recently elected Senator.

Fetterman Dons His Shorts  

It is unclear exactly when Mr. Fetterman began wearing the costume for which he is now famous, but it was during his tenure as Mayor of Braddock.  It had become part of his persona by the time he became Lieutenant Governor, as he bragged after his election that he had no sleeves to roll up because he wore only t-shirts.  There does not appear to be any defining moment when Mr. Fetterman went casual, nor, as in the case of Gandhi, does there appear to be any political issue upon which he sought to shine a spotlight with his attire.

One suspects that there is some calculation in Mr. Fetterman’s choice of outfit, and that it is intended to send a message.  The difficulty is in discerning what that message is.  Defenders of Mr. Fetterman have suggested that his outfits reflect his solidarity and fellowship with the working class.  The New York Times breathlessly reported that “the effect [of his wardrobe] practically reeks of that word so beloved of the political class, and so rarely associated with them: authenticity.”  

“He looks real, an avatar of the American archetype of the working man who does an honest day’s labor (even though he did go to Harvard for his master’s degree, and his labor is mostly deskbound).”

Other defenders have sought to impart some social significance to Mr. Fetterman’s choice of shorts.  The 1930 Dartmouth shorts “protest,” for example, has been rescued from anonymity by numerous publications seeking to justify the change to the Senate rules by some reference to history.

The case which America’s paper of record makes for Mr. Fetterman would be more convincing if it could argue that his wardrobe is actually real, rather than that it merely “looks real.”  The case is further handicapped by the simple fact that there is likely not any worker, blue collar or white, who goes to his job dressed in gym shorts and a hoodie.  In truth, the Times would be hard-pressed to find anyone over the age of fourteen who dresses that way.  Indeed. Fetterman’s shorts and hoodie, far from being the “avatar” of the “working man,” are instead that of who Mr. Fetterman really is -- a man who lived on his parent’s allowance until middle age.  Can one imagine Mr. Fetterman attending an audience with the King of England dressed in his shorts and sweatshirt with the same moral authority as Gandhi did in his dhoti (when later asked about the meeting, Gandhi is reported to have said that the king had enough clothes for them both)?

For this reason, as odd as it may seem,  Mr. Fetterman’s fashion choices in fact have some parallel with Gandhi’s.  The former’s outfit accurately captures his life’s achievements and influences just as accurately as the latter’s captured his.  The power of each symbol reflects the power of each man’s life.  For this reason, it is unlikely that the gym short or the hoodie will ever become a national symbol or adorn, even temporarily, a national flag.

Mr. Fetterman’s outfit reflects one other parallel with that of Gandhi.  Recently, the New York Post attempted to gain entry to several pricey restaurants in New York City dressed as Mr. Fetterman.  They were, for the most part, turned away.  Similarly, in 1958, the New York Times reported, on its front page, that a Bengali man had been turned away from a New Delhi hotel restaurant when he sought entry wearing a dhoti. The Times reported that New Delhi hotels still require “lounge suits or evening wear.”  What these stories suggest is that restauranteurs around the world take more seriously the preservation of their country’s standards and customs than do their nation’s leaders.