Political attire is the controversial wardrobe essential
It is undeniable that the political merchandise wars have permeated daily life. Beginning as simple spectacles of support, these lawn sign clashes have now escalated; a college student in Washington, DC was beaten at a feminist protest for waving a Trump flag. Yet, why do so many still insist on wearing the infamous red cap, or a pro-choice T-shirt, on college campuses and places where they may perhaps not be accepted?
Many would argue that the choice to wear merchandise is to portray personal values. Prabal Gurung, the American fashion designer who recently dressed Kamala Harris, argued this in the Seattle Times, suggesting that “clothing is our language and our medium for communication.” He points towards his emblazoned “Give a damn” leather tote — these are not polarizing political pieces but an overt expression of the bearer’s values.
Therefore, someone who wears a pro-choice tee on campus is just portraying their faith in freedom of choice, right? Arguably yes, but this line of reasoning becomes blurred when applied to political issues.
Unfortunately, much of today’s political parties have evolved to represent policies that are directly contradictory to the moral compass of the other side. Rather than serving to represent what the wearer believes in, political merchandise tends to offend those who don’t believe likewise.
Hence, political merchandise has perhaps become even more powerful than simple depictions of values, as it now represents the uniform of a tribe. Arguably, the Trump flags don’t portray any particular value or belief. Beyond the inconsistencies of his own convictions (in 1999, he declared he was pro-choice, he is now pro-life), his followers are from all walks of life and can believe in any one of his policies. Flying a Trump flag is essentially meaningless in terms of specific values — the owner’s social beliefs could be anything under the right-wing umbrella.
Thus, rather than the moral convictions, the true reason someone would wear the MAGA with pride is to simply declare themselves a Trump supporter, feeding into the “Cosa Nostra’’ rhetoric of the Trump administration and dividing a nation.
This is not just limited to the Trump tribe. The Biden-Harris merchandise became popular in response to the proliferation of MAGA wares. The most genius of their stock was purely reactive to viral moments of Trump history. Let’s take a look at two favorites — the “Will you shut up, man?” shirts that are essentially time machines to the most interesting, yet chaotic, presidential debate in history, and, of course, the legendary “Truth over Flies” fly swatters. These don’t show any particular values. The Democrats parade this clothing in solidarity for their party, for the tribe to which they belong.
Some may say that wearing tribe colors stems from wanting to represent the values of that political party. Yet, why is the merchandise branded with the divisive “Liberal Privilege,” and not the more accurate policy perspective, “Lower taxation for a better nation?” According to the University of Wisconsin Professor Katherine Cramer, these are needlessly alienating statements that have no policy grounding. They fuel the politics of resentment.
Moreover, this kind of extreme worship-like support given off by political merchandise is unique to the United States. Elsewhere around the world, it is less common to find individuals portraying their political partisanship in the clothes they wear. It would be bizarre to see an Englishman who supports his prime minister flaunting his support with teacups printed with BoJo’s unique strains of ‘Bushisms’ or a Frenchman who totters around with a beret adorned with Macron’s face. Given the high comedic standards of their current merchandise, it would not take much for the highly paid US presidential campaigns to think of less polarising methods to show support.
This is not to say, however, that all political clothing is evil. From the Gilet Jaunes to the red capes of the Handmaid, protest dressing has shaken beliefs and provoked revolution. Thus, it is not the clothing itself that is harmful. It is the brash misguided messages of the clothing that fails to represent the true values of the wearer. They act as badges of identity, stoking division. Political attire needs to be badges of thought.
In this day and age, it is imperative college campuses retain conversation. They ought to ensure that students are attuned to the other tribes and exit their echo chambers. USC should encourage students to wear political merchandise and show what they believe in. However, they should also ensure that it doesn’t have some lewd comment about Hillary Clinton and Monica Lewinsky or a snide reference to “Trussia.”