The Suit Is Not the Standard: The Cult of Uniformity in Modern Conservatism

During a recent White House meeting, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sat across from Donald Trump, fielding questions from the assembled media. But rather than focus on Ukraine’s war effort or diplomatic strategy, one journalist took issue with Zelensky’s attire, questioning why he wasn’t wearing a suit.

It was a bizarre moment, but one that perfectly encapsulated a growing cultural obsession—one that sees a suit as more than just clothing, but as a symbol of legitimacy, power, and ideological conformity. In modern conservative circles, the suit has become a kind of uniform, no longer just an outfit of choice but a marker of allegiance. It is the modern equivalent of a military dress code, an external badge of “correct” values, rigid professionalism, and above all, submission to a prescribed social order.

A Uniform of Power, Not Excellence

The suit’s history as a symbol of authority is well documented. For much of the 20th century, it was the default attire of businessmen, politicians, and world leaders—an expectation rather than a conscious choice. But in today’s world, where individual expression and practicality often take precedence, the suit remains entrenched as an outdated emblem of power.

What conservatives fail to recognise is that wearing a suit is not inherently a marker of excellence. It is, at best, a cultural convention and, at worst, a hollow display of status. The idea that Zelensky—a wartime leader actively defending his country from invasion—should be judged on his clothing rather than his actions reveals just how performative and shallow this standard has become.

Zelensky’s signature olive-green military-style clothing is not just a preference; it is a deliberate rejection of outdated political theatre. His attire reflects his reality—he is not sitting in boardrooms negotiating stock deals, but in bunkers strategising the survival of his nation. His decision to forgo the suit is a statement: this is not a time for performative professionalism; this is a time for action.

Marching in Lockstep: The Conservative Dress Code

The idea that a suit equates to competence has become deeply ingrained in conservative circles. There is an almost religious devotion to the uniform—blue suit, white shirt, red tie—paired, of course, with the ever-present red cap of the MAGA faithful.

Your accompanying image—a sea of identical figures, all marching in lockstep, blue suits crisp, red ties swinging—perfectly captures this phenomenon. It is not just about dressing well; it is about submission to a doctrine. The suit is no longer a symbol of individual success but of tribal allegiance. To deviate from it, to dress in a way that expresses anything outside of this narrow aesthetic, is seen as suspect. It is why figures like Steve Bannon, who abandoned the suit for his signature disheveled look, are regarded with unease even within their own ideological circles.

This rigid adherence to a dress code mirrors the deeper conservative impulse toward uniformity—not just in appearance, but in thought. The expectation that a world leader should dress a certain way, even in the middle of war, reveals an obsession with optics over substance, with symbols over actions.

The Hypocrisy of the Conservative Dress Code

The irony, of course, is that this rigid dress code applies selectively. Trump himself—whose own suits often appear ill-fitting, with ties that hang well below the belt—does not embody the polished, buttoned-up professional image that conservatives demand from others. His supporters do not seem to mind his aesthetic deviations, nor do they critique the informality of their own movement when it suits them. The same people who mock John Fetterman for wearing a hoodie and shorts in Congress are the first to cheer when Trump shows up to a political rally in a windbreaker and baseball cap.

The difference? The suit is not about professionalism or excellence—it is about power. It is acceptable for Trump to discard the uniform because he is the figurehead of the movement. Everyone else, however, must adhere to the dress code. They must march in formation, looking the part, reinforcing the illusion of order and discipline.

Breaking the Uniform Mentality

The moment a journalist questioned Zelensky’s clothing, it became clear how deeply entrenched this absurd expectation has become. In a time of war, where life-and-death decisions are being made, should we really be policing the attire of world leaders? Should a man fighting for his country’s survival be concerned with the cut of his lapels?

Zelensky’s rejection of the suit is a challenge to an outdated power structure. It is a refusal to play by the rules of a system that values appearance over reality. It is a direct contrast to the conformity of the blue-suited, red-tied army that dominates the conservative political aesthetic.

In a world where power is often performative, true leadership is about action, not attire. And if the most pressing critique of a wartime leader is his choice of clothing, then perhaps it is not he who is failing to meet the moment—but those who remain fixated on meaningless traditions while the world burns around them.