Looking cute does not come cheap. In fact, if you are Sarah Palin, it costs about $150,000. Recent financial disclosures from the Republican National Committee show that since McCain announced her as his running mate in late August, the RNC has spent, among other things:
- $49,425.74 on purchases at Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York
- $75,062.63 on purchases at Nieman Marcus in Minneapolis, which is across the river from the nominating convention in St. Paul
- $9,447.71 on purchases at Macy's in Minneapolis
- $5,102.71 at Bloomingdale's in New York
- $4,716.49 on hair and makeup for September (McCain must be an easy groom, since no such expenses were reported for August, back before Palin was named).
I will let other people address the legality of such expenditures on behalf of the campaign. But holy jeebus, $150k. My first thought, embarrassingly enough, was "That's 30 episodes of What Not To Wear!" If you are not familiar with this show, it gives guests (almost always women, but as a longtime closeted viewer, I think I remember some men in the early seasons) five grand to trash their ill-fitting, threadbare, or otherwise unflattering clothing and to buy themselves a new wardrobe according to certain rules laid out by the two hosts. I always thought that seemed like an awful lot of money.
Palin (or probably more accurately, her stylist) has spent about 30 times that amount to dress her for the national stage. And why are such extravagant expenditures deemed necessary? I think it's pretty obvious that it's because she's a woman. Indeed, she is a woman who has chosen to use the fact that she is very conventionally attractive to her professional advantage.
I have a couple of thoughts on this:
First, now I know why I have been digging her outfits so much. I can't stand the woman or her politics, but I do love her shoes and jackets. I can also now spend somewhat less energy admiring them, since I know there is no way they are in my Jane Wine Box future.
Second, I have to disagree, to a certain extent, with responses to the wardrobegate story by top Democrats:
Beyond the political tit-for-tat, however, the revelation of the clothing expenditures offers what some Democrats see as a chance not just to win several news cycles during the campaign's waning days but to severely damage Palin's image as a small-town, 'Joe Six-Pack' American.
"It shows that Palin ain't like the rest of us," Tom Matzzie, a Democratic strategist told the Huffington Post, when asked how the party would or could use the issue. "It can help deflate her cultural populism with the Republican base. The plumber's wife doesn't go to Nieman's or Saks."
Sure, not like the rest of us in that most of the rabble don't have the resources to spend the equivalent of $2500 a day on designer clothing. But she's just like the rest of us if you mean "the rest of us women who realize that we are expected to play by rules men don't in terms of how we present ourselves to the world." Depending on the situation, men always look presentable in a dark suit and tie, or in dark slacks and a white or blue shirt. Men are presentable when they by and large blend in. Women are presentable if they are cute. Cute means, among other things, varied. Noticeable. But not too noticeable, you wouldn't want to be all Pretty Woman, scene 1. But, you know, cute, somewhat sexually suggestive but not overtly so, and above all, ornamental. That must be especially so for woman in the public eye who makes appearances and is photographed every day. Playing by those rules means parting with some cash. It is not cheap to be cute.
I struggle with this pressure toward ornamentalism in my job. Partly because I don't generally enjoy shopping, and I don't love spending money on clothes, but I want to be taken seriously even if that means playing up cuteness qualities that, objectively speaking, have nothing to do with my professional accomplishments. And although I am not photographed every day (thank god) I do have a job where my appearance, at least on some days, really really matters. If I appear in court or at a negotiation and I look sloppy, I am setting myself up to be disrespected or discounted even if I am the best prepared person in the room. That sucks, and it is sexist, but it is also true.
I am never more acutely aware of this than when I am representing low-income clients who the judge, for that reason alone, may be predisposed to distrust. I was once in housing court fighting an eviction and my client, prompted by my instruction to wear her best clothes, wore short shorts and a very small halter top. I will sing it loudly from the rooftops that it shouldn't matter what she chooses to put on her body, but that did not mean we weren't starting out a little farther in the hole than we would have been if she'd made a different choice in getting dressed that morning. And my client has the right to wear what she likes (even as I am debating whether I can or should position myself as I'm speaking to obscure the judge's view of her), but I have an obligation to present myself, physically and professionally, in a way that is most advantageous to her. I hate heels, I hate nylons, I hate blowdrying my hair. When I am in court, I am sporting heels, nylons, and a blowout. You can never tell who you're going to offend for some asinine reason, but I'm not going to screw my client because I don't look the part of competence.
Sarah Palin is on a months long job interview (well, maybe "interview" is not exactly accurate, given her unwillingness to speak to the press...). She's done a lot of fantastically stupid and unprincipled things in her life, but I don't blame her for not wanting to add "alienated potential supporters by not looking cute enough" to her list. It's bullshit that it matters, but it does still matter. Remember, Hillary Clinton went with the functional and decidedly not "cute" pantsuit week in and week out and she was derided for it. I am also not surprised that people are jumping on the dollar amount--it's a pretty extravagant outlay and the RNC was probably not he right pocket to reach into to cover it. But I would love it if some commentator other than me could swallow their indignation to point out that what we're really looking at is not just a story about extravagance, but the story about what it costs women to play by the rules, whether they want to or not.
13 comments:
Our society is weird. It sucks because not only do we make less, we are expected to spend more on clothes, hair and make-up. And if we do spend a lot we are derided as being shallow and if we don't we are called cheap or slobs. Eurghh. Great post!
Great post! Also, though, it isn't just the RNC or Sarah Palin who spends so much - candidates have been paying up for designer clothes, hair, and makeup since, well, since television entered the fray.
And while far more is surely spent on women, I bet you that Obama, McCain, and even their wives have also dropped a staggaring amount on clothing/grooming in the last year at the hands of their campaigns (and I'm sure Hillary's budget would not exactly pale in comparison).
The amounts do seem extraordinary and could probably be lowered with little effort, but I can't really argue that the money isn't well spent or necessary. Especially if you compare it to what is spent on transportation, hotels, speechwriters, researchers, marketing, etc, etc.
And furthermore, appearance does matter, despite the years I spent trying to argue with my father that it doesn't. What you wear and how you groom says a LOT about you. And I'm not even inclined to say that's a bad thing. Your appearance can signal to others that you are artsy, rebellious, organized, detail-oriented, boring, exciting, scary, rich, poor, battered, sexual, professional, athletic, or any number of other descriptors. It's useful and it's sometimes important to be able to look at a person and "know" things about them.
Meg's comment actually reminds me of one blog I have been way too sucked into lately, Mrs. O, which chronicle's Michelle Obama's fashion choices. H&M, J. Crew and White House/Black Market all make appearances in between Narcisso Rodruigez and other name labels.
I don't mean to imply, though, that nyah nyah nyah, Michelle Obama looks great for cheap, Sarah Palin is a crazy spendthrift (though honestly, give me half her budget and I promise I will Bring It). The pressures are certainly different for candidates as compared with candidates' wives. I think Sarah Palin really needs the authority of a structured jacket since she's the candidate and is only right this very second making her first impressions on national voters about her ability to lead. Whereas Michelle Obama can pull off more casual looks without undermining her qualifications for First Lady (which I say somewhat tongue in cheek since the only qualification for that office is being married to the guy who wins).
Comparing Michelle to Cindy, though, is apples to apples and in that contest Michelle wins hands down for dressing well without mountains of cash.
Great post. What drives me especially crazy is that the people harping on this are the same people who pearl-clutch about "the ISSUES! why can't we just talk about the ISSUES?" when the coverage about consumer choices is less favorable to their guy or gal (e.g. arugula-gate).
I suspect they were nowhere near as upset by John Edwards infamously expensive haircuts.
It does NOT cost $150,000 to play by the supposed rules. It might cost a more than the $5000 that the "What Not To Wear" folks give out to change a woman's wardrobe. I'd expect it to cost $15k to $20 INCLUDING regular dry cleaning to provide a wardrobe that lasts through a few weeks before repeats. However, I would completely draw the line at couture. She probably needs a few nice evening gowns for formal events and several (like 10) suits/dresses and several pairs of shoes. And maybe some dressed up casual stuff. However, I would think she has some shoes in her very own closet and certainly some decent outfits since she's been a governor for a little while and must have some work clothes appropriate for public stage. And while it's best to have clothes that look sharp and stay looking sharp, one does not need to buy only high end designer clothing. I think what must be noted here is that Sarah Palin is building a great case for being known as a grand manipulator of the "system"...whatever system is at hand for the situation. Of course our general population of people that choose to be associated with the Republican party are none too bright, so they won't notice this.
I think it should almost be a crime for public servants to spend a lot of money on extravagant luxuries. Public servants are paid by the public - many of whom are very poor - to serve the public. I don't want my tax dollars paying for luxuries such as overpriced designer clothes, desks, curtains, or other items that have no bearing on their ability to perform. It she be a patriot duty to spend less and serve more.
I think it also says something about class and accessibility to these political positions: namely, that the candidate is supposed to have enough personal wealth to cover these expenses herself. There was some criticism of Cindy McCain's expensive convention wardrobe, but it quickly subsided.
I wouldn't expect the comparatively young governor of Alaska, who previously ran city council meetings, to have a wardrobe quite good enough for several months on the national stage. By "good enough" I mean suits and dresses that are well constructed, well tailored, and of quality material that doesn't look shoddy or shiny under bright camera lights. Ann Taylor Loft isn't going to cut it.
TheWeyrd1, I am with you that $150,000 seems like faaaaar too much. But I don't know what the right amount would have been, and I'm not alone in that. You've got to get a lot of different looks that look great, a wardrobe that can transition you through lots of different climates, August to November. Ten suits would seem like a lot to me if they were all hanging in my closet, but at ten suits she's rewearing the same suit every other week, which is perfectly normal yet I suspect it would be a very documented, dissected, and discussed choice. Not to mention that it does not fit wth the image the party is trying to play up of her being hyper-feminine, "the hottest governor" and that whole dog and pony show. I do not have the stomach to look through daily photologs of Sarah Palin's wardrobe, but I would not be surprised if they bought enough clothes that they had to be reworn only once or twice between her nomination and election day. And she's starting from basically nothing--there's not really such a thing as "dress fleece" on the national stage, unlike in Alaska. I am not making this up or trying to be petty, there were pictures of her on her .gov webpage doing official business in what literally look like clothing I have purchased from REI.
I cannot argue with you about it leaving a bad taste in terms of milking the system, though. And I don't for a moment believe the clothes were intended to be donated to charity.
I'm with TheWeyrd1 on this one. Being just 6 months out of grad school and working a "real job," I'm quickly learning the ropes about professional dress. But, you know, I actually know how to do it on a budget. Guess what? I don't need couture from Saks to look like a respectable professional. Neither does Palin. Plus, really, she couldn't bring her own shoes with her? She doesn't know how to style her own hair? Hasn't she been styling her own hair since at least middle school? I can see the importance of a professional makeup artist to make your face look good under all those TV lights. I can see investing in some new suits. But not couture, and not on frivolities.
I do not have the stomach to look through daily photologs of Sarah Palin's wardrobe, but I would not be surprised if they bought enough clothes that they had to be reworn only once or twice between her nomination and election day.
I thought about the possibility of that as well, but not for long, because it genuinely makes me sick.
I'm a capitalist, at least in theory. But I cannot stomach the thought of that level of consumption and waste. It is flat-out disgusting.
Maybe I should just consider myself "privileged" for not being in the public eye, and therefore being free to only require two skirts, two pairs of dress pants, two suits (one fall and one winter), a handful of tops, and 3 pairs of shoes in order to dress for success. (And being able to consider that having "a lot" of clothes.) Maybe I should consider myself lucky that I have the luxury of shopping at thrift stores to save money. I guess sometimes invisibility does have its benefits.
I think it's also worth considering that Palin (or the people working with her) may be trading money for time, in a positive way. You can look professional on a budget, but it takes more time and attention.
I also suspect that some of this cost is from other people buying clothes for her. The $150,000 figure may include a lot of clothes she has never worn and won't wear. It might be wasteful not to return extras, but it's easy to see how that could be a low priority in the heat of a campaign.
Given the time crunch involved in Palin's nomination, I wouldn't want to find out she's taking the time necessary to put together a professional wardrobe on a reasonable budget.
People 'derided' the Clinton pantsuits? Maybe in the fashion pages, but I never heard jack about it and Clinton's favourable/unfavourable score was always way, way, higher than Palin's is now. Clinton proved soundly that there was no reason for a woman to play dress-up if she wanted to reach the top; her campaign failed due to mismanagement and internal feuding, not samey pantsuits that were barely more showy than Obama's wardrobe, and even then the margin of loss was much smaller than McCain/Palin's will be. In a straight-out comparison Palin's wardrobe gets trounced by Clinton's, even without the embarrassing expense factor.
This is a great post. I live in Alaska and I must say . I personally have dropped 1300 for clothes that fit at the time I was in the store. The opportunity cost to purchase clothes in alaska is huge!!! No choices, limited sizes, "will order it for you from seattle" I don't have shoes in the closet I would wear to any very important event outside (ie outside the state). High heels don't go through the snow. Dress fleece is the norm... I show up in Houston in a fleece jacket from REI (which is pretty dressy up here) and I would be laughed off the floor. I was not surprised to see the value add up for the exercise, and no I did not vote for her when she ran for governor either.
Post a Comment