Battle of the political brands

Written by Vanessa Friedman

Not long after the ABC presidential debate began on Tuesday night, Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, brought up one of the telling points of the evening. His brand, he said, was “great.” He had built a fantastic brand.

“She doesn’t have a brand,” he said, speaking of his opponent, Kamala Harris. “She copied Biden’s brand.”

The reference to President Joe Biden suggested Trump was not talking about real estate brands. He was talking about political brands. And part of what the debate offered was a chance for each candidate to embody exactly what that meant, for the millions watching to see.

Some of that, the most important part, is what they said. Some of it is how they said it. And some of it is how they looked when they said it. Or even, more important, how they looked when they weren’t saying anything at all but were still trying to convey information — about who they were and how they positioned themselves. A brand, after all, is simply a set of values contained in an image.

To that end, Trump did, indeed, show off his signature brand. He wore his now familiar flag-adjacent uniform of red (tie), white (shirt) and blue (suit) and his now familiar combative expression under hair that looked slightly more sandy than cream puff. His tie was bright and extra-long, the knot large; his jacket was unbuttoned, the politician’s flag pin on his lapel.

And contrary to what Trump said, Harris showed off what is clearly her brand too.

She wore a black pantsuit, a white shirt with a thin, knotted neck scarf, or lavaliere tie (one that is not quite as large and floppy as a pussy bow), and her usual 3-inch-heel pumps, pearl studs in her ears and, natch, a flag pin on her lapel. Her jacket was neatly buttoned to keep it under control. Her hair was glossy and gently waved. She wore a smile and sometimes a raised eyebrow.

The shirt was almost identical to the white shirt she wore for her surprise appearance on Day 1 of the Democratic National Convention, and it was similar to the one she wore for her speech accepting the nomination. Given the rules of fashion physics — one example of anything is a fluke, two is a coincidence and three is a trend — this suggests that the “tie” shirt-and-trouser suit would be her presidential uniform. It’s not exactly a radical choice for women in politics. In fact, it’s verging on the retrograde, like Margaret Thatcher combined with Hillary Clinton.

But that may be the idea.

Harris is breaking barriers in all sorts of ways. She is challenging what has been, up to now, the male, mostly white, presidential status quo. If she wanted to reassure viewers that she was a candidate they could recognize, one who even looked familiar — one who looked presidential — wearing a dark suit with the sort of white blouse and pseudo-tie that looks a lot as if it were handed down from the founding fathers is one way to do it.

Certainly she did not conjure the stereotype of a “Marxist,” as Trump suggested. She looked as if she was part of a tradition, though not the tradition of rainbow-colored pantsuits so beloved by many female politicians. She didn’t deny her femininity, but, as with her general approach to her candidacy, she didn’t foreground it either.

After the debate was over, no fashion label stepped forward to claim her look, as Chloé had done after each of her DNC appearances. That makes sense. Harris’ suit may have been new, or it may have been from her closet — she has, it seems, a wardrobe of prosecutor’s dark suits — just as Trump’s suit was probably from his closet. The debate wasn’t about fashion statements. (The garment that caused the most fashion chatter of the night was moderator Linsey Davis’ sharp-shouldered gray pinstriped jacket.) But it was about style — governing and otherwise. That is part of what forms opinion.

On Wednesday morning, social media, newsletters and the front pages of newspapers across the country were full of pictures of the candidates behind their podiums. It turned out that Trump’s suit, which coordinates so well during his rallies, with the American flags often arrayed behind him, matched almost exactly the color of the debate stage. Rather than dominating, he sort of faded into the background.

Harris, in her darker suit, offered a contrast. It seemed like a metaphor for the night.

Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.