Gloria Steinem once said, "Fashion in the past meant conforming and losing oneself. Fashion in the present means being unique and finding oneself.” 

We are defined by how we choose to define ourselves. Identity seeps into everything we do and everything we put into the world. This is why, unsurprisingly, fashion and identity exist within one another. This is also why fashion has a deep and intimate relationship with politics. When the two work together, legends live and die, and movements rise to the surface and fall just as fast. But what makes this relationship so impactful? As always, it comes down to power. 

Since fashion signals status and power, and power manifests as an influence, then fashion is influence. Now, what societal role satisfies both the ego and soul? Politics. What do politicians have? Influence. See where I’m going? 

In 2015, there was a sudden sea of red baseball caps with the infamous “Make America Great Again” slogan that would uniform the far-right and future President Donald J. Trump. By April 2019, over 1 million hats had been sold. By putting this message in an easily consumable, gender-neutral accessory, the Trump campaign gave new meaning to political marketing and merchandising and became the pinnacle of modern political advertising. He encouraged his supporters to wear their values, and it proved to be a powerful public display of ideology. Paraphrasing Steinem, fashion, in any context, is the most radical form of self-expression. 

We cannot talk about fashion in politics without addressing its lack of intersectionality and public perception. The role of the first lady is ever-evolving because of the women who took it on with the intention to be hands-on—from Eleanor Roosevelt, who’d sit in on cabinet meetings and assist with policy, to Jackie Kennedy Onassis, who introduced America to the modern trope of the first lady. Onassis is celebrated for her contributions to fashion, which seamlessly expressed her charisma, and diplomacy skills that surpassed her husband’s. However, where Onassis was praised for her being bold and glamorous in her style, Michelle Obama was met with criticism. No other first lady has faced such scrutiny as Obama, with the added layer of racism to a job that is already a target for misogynistic commentary. 

Obama used fashion in politics as a way to empower her image, while inspiring others to do the same. In 2009, she told Vogue, “First and foremost, I wear what I love. That's what women have to focus on: what makes them happy and what makes them feel comfortable and beautiful. If I can have any impact, I want women to feel good about themselves and have fun with fashion.” 

Obama consistently dons designers of color, including Indian American Naeem Khan and Thai American Thakoon Panichgul. Employing her position as an American icon, she advocated for representation in high fashion, but also validated Black, Indigenous, and People of Color designs as contributions to American culture, which reflected the Obama administration’s unifying messaging. 

Much like our partisan government, political fashion between parties is also polarized. While Democratic first ladies were more liberal in their clothing choice, their Republican counterparts took a more conservative approach. Laura Bush was known for wearing muted colors and eventually made tailored pantsuits a pivotal part of her wardrobe (à la Hillary Clinton). While Bush’s style was more subdued, it reflected her husband’s party and its commitment to traditionalism.

However, fashion cannot be a distraction from holding politicians accountable for the jobs they were elected to. Sometimes we get so lost in the charm of these public figures (remember Barack Obama’s tan suit?) that we ignore all of their not-so-glamorous decisions on the job (his assistance to Saudi Arabian forces in the air offensive against Yemen, which killed and wounded thousands of civilians). There are also the MAGA hats, which ignited a movement that ultimately led to the Jan. 6 Insurrection at the Capitol. 

What do the MAGA hat, Jackie Kennedy, Michelle Obama, and Laura Bush all have in common? They all utilized the power of visual representation. But when we rave about Michelle’s Inauguration dress by Jason Wu and forget that Barack deployed 400 U.S. drones that killed over 200 children during his presidency, we forget that politics is not about an image of royalty or glamour—it is real life, and it affects real people. We have to do our part to separate materialism from our politics.