Unless you have been living under a rock, you will know that Kamala Harris recently made history by being the first woman and person of colour to be elected as Vice President of the United States of America. The news has been lauded by many for its historical significance – understandably so, especially following the overt racism and sexism of the Trump administration – but the conversation has begun to turn away from policy and angle towards appearance. Tell me, anyone, why are we so culturally infatuated with what female politicians wear?

Whilst such discussions are normally isolated to relevant corners of the internet, Vice President-elect Harris has caused quite the stir. In her victory speech on Saturday 7 November, Kamala Harris wore a sleek white pantsuit (to adopt the Americanism), and the outfit’s associated figures and iconography have not gone unnoticed. White was adopted as part of suffragette symbolism; Geraldine Ferraro sported a similar look wearing a white coatdress to accept the vice-presidential nomination in 1984; Hillary Clinton wore white pantsuits to accept her own presidential nomination in 2016 as well as at one of her debates; so too have several of the Trump women worn white pantsuits at significant events, showing the true bipartisan public appeal of the look. That still begs the question – why do we care?

The outlets reporting on Harris’ wardrobe must be noted. Whilst many are fashion and lifestyle sites and publications anyway (meaning this line of inquiry really should not be surprising, or even scrutinised to such a great degree), many are political newsrooms purporting to discuss elected representatives with the most diligent integrity. Yes, they may have fashion and beauty writers, but they certainly did not feature analyses of Donald Trump’s ties. Why do they care about the next Vice President’s shoes?

Political life is full of symbolic acts, and with a more gender-balanced political landscape than ever, the typically feminine topic of fashion is becoming more and more significant as a point of discussion. Fashion is a site of politics, and to disagree with that statement is to misunderstand fashion completely. The myriad sartorial options available to women make their eventual choices all the more intriguing, and thus, open to debate. Who could forget the infamous jacket Melania Trump wore to visit immigrant children detained at the US-Mexico border – ‘I really don’t care, do u?’ Tone-deaf does not even cover it. Her later protestations that the message was misinterpreted rang hollow for many; it was ‘for the people and for the left-wing media who are criticising me. And I want to show them I don’t care.’ Wow, you really owned the liberals with that one Melania.

Style is a fundamental facet of one’s personal identity, whether you care about it or not. It can dictate how you are perceived by others, from what culture you subscribe to, to your age, to more insidious assumptions such as how professional an employee you will be to how likely people of colour, most specifically black people, are to be racially profiled. I am not here to cast moral aspersions over any of these factors – although some of these assumptions are, of course, completely unjust – I am just reminding you that they do in fact exist. And for black women, the judgements cast based on appearance are more palpable than for any other group.

The point is not that beauty and clothes do not matter – in politics, as in life, they really do – it is that this should not be the main focus for the scrutiny of someone for whom fashion is, ultimately, inconsequential. It is in no way ‘unfeminist’ to care about aesthetics – in some ways, it can be a radical act of self-love to grant yourself the time to enjoy your appearance. But Kamala Harris is, now, one of the most important political figures in the world. Wearing a fantastic suit should not distract from policy. The fact that Harris ‘isn’t afraid’ to wear trainers – Converse high tops, to be precise – should not be considered radical, even if she is the first to make a point of doing so. The spheres of fashion and politics collide constantly, but to prioritise the former over the latter, for a politician, is nonsensical.

The irony in the focus on Harris’ appearance is that she is hardly a non-controversial candidate, on both sides of the political aisle. Republican Party attacks against the vice president-elect have largely amounted to racist dog whistles, or exaggerated emphasis on her more progressive statements. Progressives, both within and outside of the Democratic Party have called attention to Harris’ denial of gender-affirming healthcare for incarcerated transgender people, or high numbers of prosecutions for cannabis-related convictions (despite later calling for an end to mass incarceration, which largely stems from drug-related offences). With so much to unpack already, why is the discourse so dominated by her attire? Focusing on the aesthetics of Kamala Harris risks feeding into the ‘girlboss’ culture that sanitises the less palatable actions of female politicians, rather than giving them the fair scrutiny that they deserve.

It is not just women in politics who are affected by such focus on how they look, but considering the absolute importance of optics in presidential campaigns, it is frustrating to see it so clearly when compared to the analysis of Joe Biden. Amid fears over the appeal of the 77-year old, his PR team chucked a pair of aviators his way – the job is done, he is cool now. Considering the ease with which Harris commanded audiences at the early presidential primaries, it is perhaps even surprising to some that she was on the less coveted side of the ticket to Biden – especially with her visceral rebuke of his opposition to bussing policies that personally impacted her childhood. No one spoke about what she wore after that moment.

If America wants to be celebrated for this historic election, then the media must, in turn, scrutinise Kamala Harris’ political character rather than her wardrobe, hair, and makeup. Opinion is certainly divided about both (what else is new?), but in the grand scheme of things, we must recognise that only one truly matters. Politicians are never bold enough with their fashion for it to actually warrant prioritisation over discussing their policies. I am certainly willing to be proved wrong on this, but I doubt that will be the case – if the most radical style choice to come from a Kamala Harris vice presidency is pearls paired with Timberlands, I think Vogue will keep Harry Styles on the cover.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Like this? See below for more from Comment:

Why Kamala Harris is Biden’s Perfect Pick

From Red to Blue: What Caused States to Swing in 2020?

Rural vs. Urban: America’s Forgotten Electorate