The clothes racks at JCPenney must be close to empty by now, as the political pantsuit appears to be making a comeback thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris. Be it a festive occasion, an ordinary working day, or anything in between, you can bet your sweet bottom, Ms. Harris will arrive in her uniform of sorts: the polyester pantsuit. In politics, as in life, what we wear speaks volumes about who we are. So, what is her wardrobe telling us?
No discussion of female clothing should be held without consulting the rag industry bible, Vogue. It claims to have put the famed “female trouser suit” on the map in 1933 with a daring photo of movie star Marlene Dietrich sporting an off-white summer suit and tie. The fashion statement caught on with Greta Garbo and Katharine Hepburn, but few others. Vogue also asserts that women could be arrested until the 1950s for wearing trousers, but that was long ago and far away.
The Pantsuit and Other Atrocious Fashion Statements
As anyone over the age of 50 knows, the heyday of the polyester pantsuit occurred in the 1960s and ‘70s before it was outlawed by the fashion police for its tragic look on so many women. But it appears to be making a comeback among Democratic ladies; a case in point was the recent televised Oprah Winfrey event featuring the vice president. Both women wore pantsuits with a matching ascot blouse, which was startling in its congruity.
This rerun of a fashion blunder appears to have begun with Hillary Clinton, who wore pantsuit after pantsuit in the run-up to her historic loss to Donald Trump. However, even Ms. Clinton managed to individualize her limited fashion statements with scarves, jewelry, and the occasional unique blouse. This is not so for Ms. Harris, who wears a pantsuit as a uniform. So, what messages are being sent to the public by wearing nothing but pantsuits?
Could it be “I wear the pants in this family”? Or is it supposed to send an androgynous message to the public? Perhaps this particular fashion statement is meant to convey what all uniforms do – that “I am not an individual but rather part of a collective.” That theory fits in well with the history of pants.
“[P]ants were commonly used by both men and women in ancient China. Even in Ancient Greece, some pottery depicts warrior women wearing pants,” according to History Alive Today. In modern times, there is a perfect example of the Sun Yat-sen suit, which morphed into the national dress of Mao Zedong, requiring the masses to wear the Zhongshan fu. Sporting a turn-down collar with four front pockets, it signified the “Four Cardinal Principles” of the Book of Changes that outlined Mao’s principles of conduct, which included propriety, justice, honesty, and a sense of shame.
But that’s not all. The five buttons down the center of the tunic “were said to represent the five powers of the constitution and the three cuff buttons to symbolize the Three Principles of the People: nationalism, democracy, and people’s livelihood,” according to one historic museum website.
This is a far cry from other political women who have sought to distinguish themselves from others and establish their own style. Margaret Thatcher, for example, always carried a sense of fashion in the conservative yet attractive clothes she wore. Jacqueline Kennedy – while not a politician herself – advanced her husband’s career with an extraordinary sense of elegance in the clothes she wore. Indira Gandhi, while wearing traditional Indian garb, always managed to look well put together. Queen Elizabeth, who could be considered a quasi-politician, tended to wear bright colors to set herself off from the crowd. Each of these women, in one way or another, used their femininity as an asset, and their clothing choices became an existential statement of who they were and how they wanted to be perceived.
By continually dressing within a limited style, perhaps Kamala Harris is communicating who she is far better than verbalizing it: She is more comfortable being part of a collective than an individual, identifies with a classless society in which everyone is equal, and feels most comfortable in a uniform. Who says clothes cannot have meaning?
