Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
Over the last few days, several articles have called attention to the fashion choices of our leading men and women. Over at The Daily Beast, there was a piece titled, “The Language of Margaret Thatcher’s Handbags.” Another piece from the Wall Street Journal took a look at Michelle Obama’s wide-cinching belts, which binds her dress to her mid-waist. After Sarah Palin appeared on Fox News last week to give her views on the Iowa caucus, the blogosphere was more agitated by her new hairdo than by what she said, outrageous or not. And then there’s the case of Rick Santorum’s sweater vest, which has taken on a life of its own in the media and on Twitter, where it has its own handle.
Articles like these are abuzz in the media on a daily basis, obsessed as it is with judging celebrities—political or otherwise—as much on their appearance as their opinions. I suppose voyeur-journalism is only to be expected in the digital age. The question is, what possesses the media to compulsively cover the facile fashion choices of our leading men and women? Why does a sweater or a dress merit its own story?
Our fashion choices, like totems, are an easy way to communicate and connect with people who do and don’t know us. In a culture as focused on appearances as ours, a quick way to express yourself and your social status is through your accoutrements--what you wear, your body language, and your manner. We are all, by force of circumstance, voyeur and exhibitionist, observer and observed. For Margaret Thatcher, “handbags came to signify femininity and toughness.” Michelle Obama’s belts are also a symbol of “power” and “femininity…[and] for a style that prevents wearers from taking a deep breath, some extra-wide belts on the spring runways were seen as inspired by bondage gear or corsets.” Sarah Palin’s new hairstyle was disheveled, which led one blogger to wonder, “Was her hairstylist off for a post-holiday vacay? Was she trying out a new 'do for 2012? Or did she just not feel like washing and brushing out her New Year's Eve style? I want answers.” Rick Santorum’s vest, meanwhile, was “symbolic of his neighborly Good Lord Jesus sincerity.”
Public figures like Thatcher, Obama, Palin, and Santorum do not symbolize these various qualities that the media projects onto them—rather, they want us to think that they do. Their fashion choices are just as manufactured as their sound bites, putting the lie to the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words. Sometimes—in fact more often than not—a picture is just a picture, just as it was once observed that, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. Words carry meaning in ways that fashion can only pretends to. And yet, the power of the picture, the visual, the shape and color of the image will steal the attention of anyone living fast and loose in a world of style over substance. Too often, the pundit’s preference for a quick judgment about the "powerful" accessory is akin to a teenager’s preference for video games over reading a thick book.
The problem with the media's coverage is its lazy bias of style over substance, which is ultimately a general criticism of our culture at large (and of ourselves in particular). Most of us, including the best and the brightest, won't remember what Sarah Palin said on Fox News last week, but we'll remember her bee-hive hairdo.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
~-~
Dec '11
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
Let us pray that no one has a photograph of Newt Gingrich in a Speedo.
Dec '10
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
Not that I don't think fashion is important but it is not my area of expertise. In fact I suspect that what I don't know about fashion could not only fill a book but an encyclopedia.
What I am more interested in is the general way in which people handle themselves. Normally, high quality people in high positions handle themselves quite well. When they don't it is usually big news. However, what is stranger still is the phenomenon of a high quality person in a high position who really behaves regularly in a strange way and gets away scott free.
I really think Michelle Obama is in that category. The first unbelievable fact is the business about the assistants. She has 14 or 15, something like that number. No other first lady in history including Elenore Roosevelt had more then 4 assistants. How does she imagine herself to be so important as to require over 4 times the support staff as Elenore Roosevelt. If you have read about Mrs. Roosevelt she was extremely active and considered to be Franklin's secret weapon. (cont.)
Edited on Jan 10 at 1:59pmDec '10
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
(cont. from #3)
I think years of being a pampered quota-based affirmative action queen have completely scrambled her brain. She has always been able to pull out the ace of trump, gender/race bias false accusation, to extricate herself from any unpleasantness. No need to win any argument on hard analysis or raw knowledge of a subject. Just round up the usual intellectual suspects and blow the old PC smoke and you win the day. Boy wouldn't it be nice if life was that easy for the rest of us. The next time you're reading the fine print on a contract or trying to negotiate an arms length deal with a really smart 'tough customer' remember the queen of goofball running around the world with her 14 assistants. Now, try not to start screaming. This is a great character builder. Thanks Michelle.
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
At the recommendation of Pseudodionysius, I've been reading James Humes' Speak Like Churchill, Stand Like Lincoln. Humes does made a big deal about clothes and accessories. He argues that a wardrobe helps project a powerful presence.
As an historic example of someone who understood how wardrobe portrayed presence, Humes points to Ben Franklin.
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
Humes goes on to discuss the signature symbol that great leaders choose to associate with. Lincoln's stovepipe hat, FDR's cigarette holder, Churchill's cigar, Stalin's pipe, Maggie's handbag, Barbara Bush's hallmark white pearls.
Whether people like to admit it or not, they form impressions and associate thoughts and feelings based on what politicians and celebrities wear and how they present themselves. I agree with you, Emily, that the countless articles on fashion are a sign of lazy journalism. And I'm bored by the topic of Sarah Palin's hair, Rick Santorum's sweater vest, and Michelle Obama's sleeveless dresses. But as you say, these are the things that we tend to remember long after we've forgotten the actual substance these figures ever put forth.
Oct '10
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
My wife can tell you what so&so wore to a wedding 25 years ago. It's distaff magic.
Sep '10
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
To riff on Diane Ellis's post (thanks for the hat tip Ms. Ellis!) Ronald Reagan deliberately wore the everyman style brown suit and tied his tie knot in a big unfashionable windsor because he had a disproportionately small head -- a trick he learned from Hollywood. I learned these little tidbits from a book not to be missed, Peter Robinson's How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life.
(I take a back seat to no one when it comes to segues)
Oct '10
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
Dress these folk in off the rack duds from Target or Mens Warehouse and see how marketable they would be. You can put a total dud in great garb and people will buy it every time. Presentation is everything, substance, not so much. Sad that.
Dec '10
Re: Judging Our Politicians By What They Wear
Diane, isn't this the whole point. The great Historical figures you mention are using fashion statements to express their actual political philosophy. They are not manipulating people with symbols so that the people remain unaware that the political figure actually has no memorable political philosophy anyway.
That's a horse of a different color.