Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris made a surprise appearance on the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Monday.
Her comments were a fitting tribute to President Joe Biden as the evening closed out, and her outfit was a clear indication of how she feels about past, present and future media commentary regarding her fashion choices.
She was wearing a brown suit, dear readers, which, as experts were quick to point out, is not the typical tournament colors of red, white, blue, and black.
Some saw it as a scathing, cheeky recall of when conservative pundits and other Republicans were outraged a decade ago when President Obama showed up to a press conference in a similar color suit. At the time, Fox News host Lou Dobbs called the outfit “shocking.” Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) went further, calling it “unpresidential.”
Being edgy and sassy certainly fits the brand image of the Harris-Waltz campaign (just look at the recent conservative Doritos furore), but more importantly, Harris made it very clear that she intends to make her own fashion decisions, whether conservative or not, whether the media likes it or not.
Since Harris became the Democratic nominee, nothing has been more tedious and infuriating than the debate over whether she will update what fashion pundits inevitably call “safe” and “conservative” outfits with “daring” choices.
The New York Times published an early, unconventional piece suggesting that Harris’ decision to begin her whirlwind presidential campaign in the “plain” vice presidential “uniform” of a “neutral pantsuit” with her “usual trademark pearl necklace and 70mm Manolo Blahnik heels” raised the question: “Is she fit to be president?”
Harris, who strode across the stage at her own presidential convention in a brown Chloe pantsuit, emphasized how ridiculous and sexist the question was. She knows that every suit, blouse and piece of jewelry she wears will be scrutinized like the Da Vinci Code for political messages and “hidden” meanings. So why not just reveal it all on day one?
She’ll probably be the next president and she’s got a tan. Never mind that.
It’s nice to think that this might put an end to the breathless speculation about whether Harris would dramatically change her style and what that might mean for the future of the republic. There’s no fashion template for a female president, but as vice president, former senator (D-Calif.), former attorney general of California and former district attorney of San Francisco, Harris has spent much of her life putting together a set of business, casual and evening attire for public appearances befitting a powerful figure. And so far, it’s worked out pretty well.
Love or hate her politics is up to you, but if what she wears on any given day doesn’t look “bold,” does it really matter at this point?
Alas, yes, because Harris is a woman running for president, her fashion choices will matter: campaign attire, accessories, formalwear, outerwear, and especially shoes.
Whether bold or safe, Harris will be forced to pay the ultimate woman tax: She will have to devote far more time, energy and money to choosing her wardrobe than her male opponents.
Just ask Hillary Clinton, who has made waves throughout her long political career as First Lady, Senator, and Presidential candidate based on her penchant for pantsuits, bold colors, changing hairstyles, and (surprisingly) the occasional experiment with a slightly lower neckline.
The idea that pantsuits, skirt suits, or dresses do not look “presidential” blatantly defines “presidential” as a man wearing a dark suit, a white or blue shirt, a red or blue tie, and black or brown lace-up shoes.
Yep, it’s not boring or stereotypical at all.
So far, characterizing Harris as choosing to look “conservative” falls into the sexist trap of thinking the more she does it, the more she’s compelled to do it. Imagine the reaction if she really did change course and start campaigning in sleeveless, daisy-print outfits. Or if she really did “play it safe” and show up in only dark colors and flats like most male presidential candidates, including her current opponent.
Calling her everyday clothes, which come in a variety of shades of salmon, lavender, pink and electric blue, “neutral” (a term often used to describe her outfits) only serves to highlight a complete double standard — at least until a male presidential candidate tries to pull off a teal suit.
Harris seems to have fun with her fashion choices, whether it’s Carolina Herrera and Manolo Blahnik, or black skinny jeans and Converse Chucks.
But the scrutiny she faces, positive or negative, inevitably adds a level of difficulty that her opponent in a boxy blue suit and long red tie does not and has never faced.
Trump may be spending an unusual amount of time on hair and makeup, at least for a male presidential candidate, but he doesn’t need to worry about the “saying” of his necklace or the height of his heels, or worry that wearing too many “neutral” tones will make him seem submissive.
As the reaction to the brown suit attests, whatever Harris wears will be praised, criticized, discussed and dissected to the last detail. At this point, her pearls have their own mythology, her Chuck Taylors are always talked about and she is now being inspired to embrace the fashion of Shirley Chisholm and the styles and colours of her ancestral lands of Jamaica and India.
On Monday night, Harris sent the only fashion message she needed to get across: She’s running for president, and if elected, she’ll look presidential no matter what she wears. Because she will.
