The Politics of Dressing on the US Presidential Campaign Trai
By Johanna Ramaer
“We dismiss dress as the most superficial of subjects but we return to it too, again and again, in the critical debates of our time.” These are the words of the writer Shahidha Bari who seeks to uncover the paradox and politics of dressing. Apply her logic to the US presidential campaign trail: on the one hand, politicians tend to keep away from a look that screams "fashion” and expresses too much of an interest in a world outside of the political sphere. Fashion is easily mischaracterised as superficial, rather than political. On the other hand, politicians intentionally use their dressing to communicate a specific personality to the public. Fashion is a form of communication, it expresses who we are and it expresses how we wish to be perceived.
In a political race where perception is everything, such as the current US presidential trail, candidates are very aware of how their style influences people’s view of them. Fashion is used as a political statement. And whether we like it or not politicians’ appearances have influence on how we vote. Subsequently, the candidates on the 2020 campaign trail are constantly being analysed on their physical appearances. For example, we have Trump’s signature look of a blue suit and a red tie. If you consider how red is associated with power and blue with confidence and trust, his look is carefully crafted to communicate conservatism and strength. Joe Biden on the other hand wants to present himself as the ordinary candidate who resonates with ‘the common’ people. His signature look of striped shirts and ties with aviator sunglasses communicates a mixture of both power and casual-cool. Then we have the signature pearls of Joe Biden’s candidate for Vice President, Kamala Harris. Her choice to always wear pearls could be considered as a way to soften her intimidating reputation of her years as prosecutor. All these sartorial choices are not random, but carefully selected to match and cultivate the image they want to communicate to the public. Likewise her footwear preference, Converse sneakers, conveys an equally important message. They signal action, movement and portray her as someone who is unafraid to get stuck in. Speaking to The Cut, she said: “I run through airports in my Converse sneakers. I have a whole collection of Chuck Taylors: a black leather pair, a white pair, I have the kind that don’t lace, the kind that do lace, the kind I wear in the hot weather, the kind I wear in the cold weather, and the platform kind for when I’m wearing a pantsuit.”
The rules of dressing for a politician are strict, and often follow the line of— better safe than sorry. But women in politics “are held to a different standard across the board” when it comes to dress, said Moseley Braun, who represented Illinois in the Senate from 1993 to 1999. In many ways, women are felt to have a disadvantage in politics because they don’t have a “blank“ suit to hide behind. There is no single uniform for female politicians, making what they wear a constant subject of discussion. Just consider the furore over Theresa May’s LK Bennett leopard-print kitten heels, or Jess Phillip’s penchant for big hoop earrings— female politicians are under relentless scrutiny. But it’s also an opportunity for them to reject patriarchal constructs surrounding power, femininity, and fashion. Case in point: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s signature look is the power suit in bold shades of pink and teal. “The idea that a woman can be as powerful as a man is something that our society can’t deal with. But I am as powerful as a man and it drives them crazy,” she told The New Yorker. In fact, when Ocasio-Cortez became the youngest Congresswoman in history when she was elected in 2018, she spoke of her decision to wear white to her swearing-in ceremony. “I wore all-white today to honor the women who paved the path before me, and for all the women yet to come. From suffragettes to Shirley Chisholm, I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for the mothers of the movement.”
Fashion is evidently part of every politician’s communication strategy on the US presidential trail. It allows candidates authority, autonomy and even a spark of rebellion — just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in 2009, "You know, the standard robe is made for a man because it has a place for the shirt to show, and the tie," she said. "I thought it would be appropriate if we included as part of our robe something typical of a woman. So I have many, many collars."