When George Washington was inaugurated in 1789, he wore a relatively plain brown frock coat. To the modern eye, the garment may look fancy, but it was relatively constrained for a man of Washington's position. Affluent Americans at the time tended to wear European fabrics, as centuries of textile tradition on that side of the Atlantic meant that their materials were finer, silkier, and more luxurious. Those who could afford to wear such materials often did, not just because they were more comfortable, but because they signaled status. Washington rejected this convention for his inauguration, opting instead for a plain brown frock coat made from an American-made material, specifically one produced by a relatively new upstart in Connecticut. It's also notable that his outfit for that day was considerably more restrained than those of leaders in other Western nations. For instance, check out this outfit on George III (slide one). In this 1762 coronation painting, we can see the British monarch wearing a gold damask coat with a velvet mantle lined and edged with ermine and trimmed in gold. Even his shoes featured solid gold buckles. Washington opted for something simpler because he wanted to send two political messages. First, he wanted to support domestic industry (hence his request that the garment be made from American woolen broadcloth). Second, he understood that the US was supposed to be a democratic republic, not a monarchy. Back in Europe, monarchs wore fancy ceremonial attire to reinforce their position in society. Washington, by contrast, chose something more restrained, signaling that he was not governing through divine right but rather through consent of the people. Irish-born architect James Holban also understood this when he designed the White House in the Neoclassical style, drawing from Georgian and Palladian architecture. Neoclassicism was a rejection of Rococo, which had been fashionable among European monarchs and aristocrats in the preceding decades. Most people will know Rococo from the photos of the lavish French palaces erected during the reign of Louis XV. Much like the elaborate ceremonial attire of European monarchs, these interiors were meant to impress upon people the wealth and power of European leaders. The visual grandeur reinforced the idea that these people fundamentally occupied a different social station from those they governed. To be sure, the White House was much nicer than what ordinary Americans at the time would have occupied. But much like Washington's inauguration outfit, Hoban's design was meant to balance the dignity of the office with the republican ideal that political authority ultimately comes from the people. Our leaders are not above us; they are here to serve us. That is why the White House was decorated in this relatively restrained way for almost 250 years, changing only recently. I have seen some on here suggest that glorifying the White House is meant to glorify the state, and thus the citizens. But this logic was historically used by dictators abroad, not US presidents.

This is like the "if you hadn't had breakfast this morning" test. Remember when Nate Silver predicted Hillary Clinton beating Trump in the 2016 election at 71% confidence--then everyone rubbished him, because Trump won? Then, of course, someone looked at all his ~70% predictions and found that they were right about 70% of the time, i.e. 70% the predictions were rather well calibrated.