Pant suit politics — Thoughts on campaign fashion

Writing in today’s New York Times e-letter Vanessa Friedman gets to the heart of what has been for me, a nagging question. Why does Kamala Harris always appear in pantsuits? Why is Tim Walz suited in rather uninteresting somewhat old-guy clothing? (He is only one year older than Harris but looks older.) In this presidential race, and in other political contests, how do politicians match or amplify what they say through their style of dress?

Friendman sets the stage: Every time discussions of fashion intrude on discussions of politics, as they do in moments of high pageantry such as our national party conventions, a certain amount of freaking out ensues. Sexist!, the lament generally goes. Superficial! (That’s the nice version.)

But here’s the thing: There’s a reason we refer to “the national stage” and the “theater of politics.” Costume is an intrinsic part of any drama, for both the stars and the supporting cast. It is woven into the creation and communication of character.

Such observations are nothing new. Politicians have always been groomed in accordance with their role. If Castro was always combat-ready, likewise especially in the early days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelenski was seen as one on the front line ready for the next air raid of frontline decision. Lizz Truss often appeared in blue until she was widely associated with green lettuce. And how about Scotland’s former Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon who at the late Queen’s funeral wore a stunning black outfit with a broad, black hat.

Trump appears to own only dark suits, white shirts, and an assortment of identical red ties, whereas Pierre Poilievre has now lost the geeky glasses atop open-neck lightly blue dress shirts. As Friedman notes: We make instant judgments about one another based on the images we see. It’s human instinct and part of how we decide if someone is likable or believable or a leader, as political figures of all genders, from Castro to Cleopatra, have always been aware.

So what have I noticed since the Harris party makeover? No dresses, skirts or blouses; only pantsuits. Pantsuits were to my mind very 1970s though my wife identifies this style as corporate casual. This woman means business—brat, and all that. “For the people” and all that, but these outfits run well over 1K; not for every dog-catcher.

Hilary wore white;
Kamala wore blue;
“Vote for me
  and I’ll love you.”

I must say that I am disappointed by J D Vance. Surely a suitable uniform would be some sort of camouflage akin to Duck Dynasty—though maybe that’s too cool. In his dark suit with red tie he simply looks like DT Junior—which I guess he is, as heir-opponent, except that if Donald wins, there will never be another elected president. No heir necessary. Check out Project 2025, that supposedly secret though now totally out there conservative administrative plan. Maybe Elon Musk will somehow keep him technically alive, unless they have a falling out and he sends him to Mars. There are some who like this idea, myself included.

On Tim Walz, again Friedman: Pretty much from the moment Harris chose him as her running mate, the narrative around the Minnesota governor has focused on his regular guy cred, as represented by his penchant for plaid shirts, Carhartt, Filson and other costumes of regular guy-hood. When he took the stage to accept the nomination for vice president, however, Walz did so in an impeccably tailored navy suit, blue tie and pristine white shirt — the uniform of the D.C. establishment. It sent a message that his character didn’t just play on the campaign trail, but in the corridors of power.

There’s more in the NYT, but for now, the campaign pivots to the road and everything changes. Conventions are one thing; 72 days to go till election day, anything can happen. The one thing candidates can totally control is how they look and what they wear. It will be interesting to see how each campaign unfolds.

Trump needs to re-build momentum and in some ways re-connect with his base. Harris needs to lay out policy. The Economist and the Wall street Journal clamor for detail daily. Trump needs to disciplined and move beyond endless streams of insults and fake news; Harris needs to win the respect of those to whom she cannot give one-sided, simplistic solutions—Israel/Palestine and the Middle East; immigration border states; a shaky global economy and how to manage China. If she can demonstrate attention to critics there is a chance they will listen to, and vote for her.

One interesting development is that that Trump campaign are already developing plans in case they lose. You thought 2000 was bad. Get ready for 2024. More on this later.

Back to fashion, and to the good book: “Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.” (Ephesians 6:14-15) Clothing matters. Just saying.