Fashion is a powerful form of expression. We know this already and if you read this blog and others like it, chances are you don't need to be persuaded of the accuracy of this statement. Nowhere is this form of expression more on display than in the realm of modern politics. It makes a certain amount of sense. Politics after all is but another form of stagecraft and every good stage production requires the perfect costume design to compliment the script. We've therefore come to expect that the candidates and especially the candidates' wives will be scrutinized for their sartorial choices and commented on by scores of political and fashion pundits alike. So my question is this: If fashion is indeed a form of expression and politcs is stagecraft, what are the actors telling us? What message is filtering through to the audience?
During the primaries, it seemed to me that where sartorial expression was concerned, confusion reigned among fashion and political commentators alike as to what appropriate comparisons to draw. The constant comparisons between the sartorial choices of Hillary Clinton (at the time a candidate for the Democratic nomination) and Michelle Obama (the wife of the recently acclaimed Democratic nominee) were not only silly but inappropriate. I would have thought it obvious to even a political neophyte that the proper comparison should be either between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (or at this point Barack Obama and John McCain), both aspiring to be Commander-in Chief or between Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain, both aspiring to be First Lady. Even the venerable Gray Lady herself in articles that should have been dedicated exclusively to Clinton's policies and poll numbers couldn't help slipping in a comment here and there on Clinton's pantsuits. Funny how I never once came across similar comments relating to her opponent's ill-fitting suits and bland neckwear. I initially shrugged it off as silly drivel from talking heads with nothing more insightful to offer. But as the primaries progressed and the battle between the two Democratic frontrunners dragged on, I became convinced that what I had perceived initially to be confusion was in actual fact masking something altogether different: a deep-seated discomfort with strong women and the political roles to which they aspire. Even after the close of the Democratic National Convention that officially marked the end of the primary race, the erroneous comparisons between the now former candidate and the nominee's wife persist.
The obsession of both fashion and political commentators alike with Hillary Clinton's pantsuits reveals a great deal about the views of both aforementioned groups. Just Google "pantsuit" and you'll see what I mean. What a shame there was no equivalent obsession with her healthcare or education policies (but I digress). Pantsuits may not be very feminine (they are after all a riff on a man's suit) or sexy (unless you're Madonna and the pantsuit is by Gaultier) but have the advantage of being at once modest, comfortable and professional. While it may be perfectly alright to wear a fetching pencil skirt and stilettos to walk across the stage to stand and look adoringly at your husband (the candidate) while he delivers his umpteenth speech, it won't work for the candidate on the rough and tumble campaign trail. Have you ever toured a plant or factory in heels and a pencil skirt? I have. Trust me, it hurts. I also happen to believe that we don't want a potential Commander-in-Chief who is constrained by a tight skirt or teeters on stilettos. It sends the wrong message - hence Clinton's choice of sensible heels and pantsuits. Uber-feminine flowered dresses and the 1950's silhouette which are currently in vogue may be considered elegant for someone who aspires to be "Mom-in-Chief" as Michelle Obama likes to say but hardly constitutes appropriate attire for someone who aspires to dominate a tense meeting in the Situation Room. Shouldn't this be obvious to most reasonable individuals? Yet, Obama has been consistently praised for her attire and Clinton has drawn nothing but vitriol for hers. Are fashion and political commentators so obtuse that they can't distinguish between these women's respective roles on the campaign trail? If so, perhaps they should opt for another line of work. Or, is it that our society is so deeply sexist that despite the lip service we pay to the equality of women, we are fundamentally uncomfortable with a woman with political aspirations that reach beyond that of the dutiful, adoring spouse?
I have the growing conviction that in actual fact, fashion commentary during this election cycle is code for "knowing one's place" hence the near-universal praise for Obama's feminine frocks and traditional aspirations and incessant contempt for Clinton's pantsuits and her groundbreaking aspirations. This conviction was only reinforced after Obama presented herself at the opening of the Democratic National Convention as wife, mother and sister with no mention of her Ivy League law degree or career as an executive. Her speech full of demure platitudes and her overall campaign-orchestrated Stepford-style makeover is all the more ironic given that she has identical university degrees and arguably more executive experience than her husband, the nominee. She was after all his mentor when they first met at Sidley & Austin in Chicago. Her gradual transformation from Ivy League-trained professional juggling career and family to dutiful, fawning wife and mother aspiring to nothing more than the role of 'Mom-in-Chief' has been universally acclaimed. As a woman, I find this to be deeply disappointing not to mention deeply depressing. The perfect 1950's inspired frock to complement the 1950's identity?
While it seems like this presidential election has been going on forever, in reality the general election has only just begun and I'm afraid that the inane political/fashion punditry will only become more offensive as both parties' political machinery reaches full throttle. In fact, I'm bracing for Chris Matthews and Ann Coulter to chime in along with Andre Leon-Talley and Nina Garcia. My greatest fear however is that the election will become a warped contest between Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama, two strong, accomplished and talented women in their own right, willingly vying for the title of 'Perfect Stepford Wife'. It's enough to make me want to hide out in a remote area cut off from all media until November 5 with my copy of Simone de Beauvoir's Le deuxieme sexe and a good bottle of wine. Better yet, perhaps I'll move back to Paris. Behind the occasional demure Jackie Kennedy-inspired facade on display for state occasions, Carla Bruni has at least kept her career not to mention her identity intact. Who would have thought that an Italian supermodel turned pop singer with a colorful past and a propensity for racy lyrics would turn out to be a better role model (relatively speaking) for women? C'est ironique, non?
Sincerely,
The Luxe Chronicles
Comments