BALLARO: Stop policing political fashion
Column: Hindsight is 20/21
Seeing as we have gone four weeks without an insurrection attempt, I can finally talk about the real issues facing this country. And by that, of course, I mean fashion in politics.
It was easy to confuse the presidential inauguration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Jan. 20 with a pop concert. With Lady Gaga and Jennifer Lopez headlining, it was a performance not to miss. Yet, there was a performance that eclipsed the work of both pop divas: a performance of political theater. Politicians and public figures alike were dressed to the nines for this inauguration.
Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in his own Sanders way, made fashion headlines by not wearing something that is worth five figures. He wore the mittens of the people! Fashion in the realm of politics is much less superficial than it appears at first blush. Look no further than the 1960 presidential debate between former Presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. This event was the first presidential debate ever to be broadcasted on television.
Famously, Kennedy wore a dark blue suit, while Nixon wore a grey suit. Nixon’s wardrobe became his downfall in this debate. In an age of black-and-white television, Nixon blended into the background, while Kennedy stood out strikingly in his dark blue suit. In post-debate polls, viewers who watched on television said Kennedy had won, while listeners who tuned in on radio said Nixon had won.
How much of an impact this debate actually had on the outcome of the 1960 election is suspect at best. In my opinion, I think the impact of the candidates’ fashion choices in this debate might have been slightly overblown. That said, we all know who ended up winning that 1960 election, and it sure was not Nixon.
Rewinding back to the 2016 news cycle, I am reminded of a certain “controversy” around a certain $12,495 Armani Jacket that was worn by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Political pundits and other talking heads on TV wasted no time tearing into Clinton's jacket. I am by no means a Clinton stan, far from it. Clinton is a character in politics that is dripping in deserved criticisms. Yet, complaining about designer jackets is not one of them. The entire point of Clinton’s wardrobe overhaul for the 2016 presidential election campaign was an attempt to appear more “relatable.” As it seems, based on public outcry, a pantsuit is too much of a threat to this nation’s notion of masculinity.
When a woman invests in her appearance, she is “out of touch.” If a woman does not invest in her appearance, she is a waste of space. As the old adage goes, "damned if you do, damned you don't."
Some critics might say to me, “No, Anthony, Clinton was not getting criticized for being a woman. Clinton was criticized because she was wearing an expensive suit to a speech about income inequality.” And to those, I tell them they are wrong.
Clinton was actually giving a victory speech for her recent success in the New York Democratic primary. If you read full the transcript of the speech, only briefly does she mention the topic of inequality.
Is it even worth mentioning former President Donald J. Trump’s penchant for $7,000 Brioni suits? Reminded of Dolly Parton, I think to myself, “How does a man spend that much money to look that cheap?” Getting into the weeds about differences in wardrobe criticism between male and female candidates feels fruitless. Is this some lean-in feminism hogwash? What is even the point? What a waste of digital ink. This is the type of journalism you got in the 2016 era of the 24-hour news cycle.
And, yet, one might think we have come farther along from this in 2021, but the same tired criticisms lobbed at female politicians are still here. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) gets a $300 haircut in the Washington, D.C., controversy.
Trump writes off more than $70,000 for hair and makeup as business expenses, crickets. And mind you, $300 is a darn good deal for a woman’s haircut in D.C. What was even the point here? That Ocasio-Cortez values workers’ skilled labor? I digress. Part of representing the people just comes down to looking the part. Historically, politicians have had limited options when it comes to what looks “appropriate.” But the boundaries for political appropriateness are getting pushed everyday.
A decade or two ago, a brown-skin hijabi woman who also sports a nose piercing might not have ever stood a chance in running for office. But the success of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) in Minnesota's 5th congressional district says otherwise.
If we still talk about fashion in a 1960 presidential debate, who knows how representatives will be dressing in 2060. In any case, for 2021, I just hope that standards of congressional fashion include wearing a face mask.
Anthony Ballaro is a School of Arts and Sciences senior majoring in classics and public health. His column, "Hindsight is 20/21," runs on alternate Thursdays.
*Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Due to space limitations in our print newspaper, letters to the editor must not exceed 900 words. Guest columns and commentaries must be between 700 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com by 4 p.m. to be considered for the following day's publication. Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
