On Fashion & Politics: Sarah Palin and the Cost of Looking Vice-Presidential

I never thought I would find myself defending Sarah Palin given that I loath just about everything she stands for politically, but I've reached my limit with the current kerfuffle  over the cost of her campaign trail wardrobe. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not the manner in which the purchases were made violated election campaign finance laws, I would like to address the issue of cost. I hate to break it to all the closet sexists out there, men and women combined, but a good quality professional wardrobe for women is hideously expensive and for the record, $150,000 USD for clothing, accessories, hair and make-up is not surprising in the least.

Photo courtesy of The New York Times.

First, women need much more clothing than men, not because we're frivolous but because we're held to a much higher sartorial standard than men. While most men can get by with a few good quality dark suits and multiple shirt & tie combinations, women simply can't get away with that. The very people who are currently in a snit over the cost of her "lavish" wardrobe would be sniping at her had she had the audacity to wear the same jacket two days in a row. Also, frankly, while a man can get away with a relatively cheap suit and still look commanding thanks in part to a bulkier physique and deeper voice, a woman who shows up in an Ann Taylor suit and cheap Payless shoes risks getting mistaken for her male colleague's executive assistant. I've seen it happen more than once. When you aspire to the highest professional ranks (and I believe the office of Vice President would fall into this category), you need the wardrobe to match. So, yes, we spend more to look professional because we have to. Get over it.

Second, while most professional women will build up a good quality work wardrobe over time (God knows I pilfered my mother's Chanel and Valentino jackets for at least the first three years of my professional career), Sarah Palin was thrust onto the national political scene practically overnight. I suspect what passes for chic in Wassila would not have translated well in prime time, and so practically over night she was expected to look 'vice-presidential'. Under the circumstances, I understand exactly how quickly the charges racked up the way they did. (Take heart: it would have cost considerably more to make her sound vice-presidential.)

Third and most importantly, I'm sick to death of hearing how Michelle Obama spends so much less  on her widely lauded, oh-so-demure wardrobe. Thank goodness the critically acclaimed television series Mad Men popularized the 1950's housewife/secretarial aesthetic in time for the election otherwise her husband's campaign would have had a much harder time effecting her makeover from Ivy League-trained executive to perfect Stepford Wife. The point is Sarah Palin is the candidate here, not the candidate's wife. Does anybody really think a flowery shift from H&M would have cut it during the vice-presidential debate? The same mistake was made over and over again during the Democratic primaries where commentators could not get enough of trashing Hillary Clinton's pantsuits, pointing out in contrast how lovely Michelle Obama looked in her demure, flowery shift dresses and ballet flats. I somehow doubt  it's a coincidence.

I would be less upset by all of this if the commentary were coming exclusively from old, ignorant men. At the very least, I would be able to shake my head and attribute the comments to outdated views about women and their place in the corridors of power. The problem is that it also comes from younger men and, sadly, many women who have probably at one time or another experienced the double standard described above and therefore should know better. More importantly, when are we going to stop confusing candidates with candidates' wives? If fashion is on the table as a legitimate political issue this election season, then elevate the debate - don't descend into sexist stereotypes. Whatever one's party affiliation, this kind of hypocrisy is unbecoming.

Sincerely,

The Luxe Chronicles

Comments

[Helene]

Thank you but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe my post already addresses your comment on the issue of cost. Whether the final tally included hair & make up is really not the point.

As for the point you made about Palin's family members, if you recall, much was made of Palin's appeal to the RNC's base and the whole 'family values' narrative that has dominated the Republican ideology for the past ten years. To the extent that politics is theater, I consider Palin's family members to have been extras in the 'tableau vivant' that the McCain campaign chose to present to the world. At some point, McCain's advisors obviously felt that her image needed to be overhauled and image-making comes at a price. I find it hypocritical that they would make such a stink about this now.

As for the general public's fascination with this issue, I would point out that Palin as a candidate offered plenty of legitimate issues to chew on (qualifications, experience, record, etc.) without resorting to this kind of petty bickering. Until the wardrobes of male candidates are subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as Palin's, this kind of attack smacks of sexism.

Helene

[Ken]

The RNC spent $150,000 on the wardrobe alone, I believe. Hair and make up were extra and billed accordingly. And the price tag included things for her family as well - clearly things not necessary for the campaigning. Finally, let's keep in mind that she was running for vice-presidency, not to be in a Vogue editorial; she did not need those Valentino pieces.

[Dahlia]

I'm not very much into politics, but the attack on Sarah Palin's wardrobe spending is completely off the issue at hand, which would be politics. I hate it when the media focuses on really insignificant matters like these when it doesn't affect how politics are run in the long term. Politics have become to the point where the people (or at least the media) wants the candidates we see on television be the most perfect role models with a clean slate, which is IMPOSSIBLE. No human being is perfect, I just don't understand why the people have to attack every little detail to make a point that someone is unfit.

For the record, I hate Sarah Palin as well and deem her unfit to fill Presidential shoes if the occasion rises, but to attack her on her wardrobe is plain sexist and shallow.

[esmith]

bravo! very well said!

[Helene]

Thanks for your comment Make Do Style. I would agree with you but for the fact that all politicians engage in this kind of re-branding. In this respect, Sarah Palin is no different than her Democratic opponent, Joe Biden.

Biden gets away with his 'scrappy kid from working class Scranton' routine notwithstanding the fact that he now lives in what U.S Vogue describes essentially as a Georgian mansion sitting on a pond at the end of a long driveway" in a stately suburb of Wilmington, Delaware. (http://www.style.com/vogue/feature/2008_Nov_Jill_Biden/) Yet, no one has even thought to question the cost of his suits, shirts & ties, shoes or his reported cosmetic enhancements.

For the record, I don't believe there is anything incompatible with growing up modestly yet spending on good quality clothing, especially when your job description requires you to look a certain way. I believe the only real issue here relates to whether the manner in which Palin's wardrobe was paid for violates campaign finance laws. I also believe that the agitation over the actual cost of the items themselves is nothing more than faintly concealed sexism. Being hungry for political change hardly gives you a pass on sexist attacks.

Helene

[Make Do Style]

Good point ref candidate and candidate's wife. I don't disagree on how much it takes to fund a look and the SP amount isn't excessive but if you stand up and say you are a hockey mom and then go up quite a few gears dress wise then you get what's coming. Basically she gets it because of who she is more than any other reason. People are desperate for a change so they are being meaner than normal!