One of my BlueSky correspondents brought this to my attention — it’s a Washington Post article about MAGA fashion:
“We are the zeitgeist now.”
Caroline Downey, 27, teetered atop a chair in silver heels, microphone in hand, the teardrop-shaped beads of her pink minidress reflecting light. Nearly 200 fellow 20-somethings stared back at her, nodding in agreement. It was a Thursday night at Butterworth’s, a bistro near the Capitol that’s become a sort of MAGA clubhouse in Trump’s second term. The second-floor bar was festooned with feminine flourishes — mini disco balls scattered on the bar, blush-colored balloons scattered on the floor, hot-pink “Make America Hot Again” ball caps scattered on tabletops. […]
The fashion vibe was country club meets J. Crew ad — button-ups, pleated skirts, blazers, bows, pearls. Most attendees appeared to be younger than 35 and had the liquor tolerances to prove it. There were specialty cocktails, such as the “Appeal to Heaven” (a gin and champagne drink named for a line from philosopher John Locke) and the “God & Country” (grapefruit juice and tequila — which is which, who’s to say?). Waitstaff circulated trays of caviar-coated canapés and steak tartare. By 9 p.m., the bar was packed, a huddled mass of sequins, tweed and florals.
Very on-brand of them to appropriate a Paloma and give it a stupid name.
Anyway, there is a MAGA “look” for the women who are admitted to the cult: highly plasticized, heavily made up, perhaps toting a gun. Kristi Noem is perhaps the archetype.
I don’t have a deep knowledge of Peronism, but I did listen to the whole “The Rest is History” podcast about Evita Perón. (Note to Kay: send this to your son if he’s worried that he doesn’t know too much about his subject to write about it.) I’ve also read a bit about her and the whole Peronist era. Peronism was the product of the concentration of wealth amongst a small group of Argentinians in a time when Argentina was an exceptionally wealthy country. It was a weird mixture of what would be considered left- and right-wing ideologies, but above all it was extremely personal: the person of Juan Perón and his wife Evita. At a very high level, the similarity between Peronism and first-term Trumpism is that some deeply silly people focused more on appearances than substance are in charge, but they’re generally ineffective. The difference is that Peronism at least believed in helping the poor, whereas Trumpism believes that poverty is a reflection of bad character.
Evita was a fashion icon, and this review of her use of fashion explains how she used it in her politics. (She was a shrewd and effective politician given the limitations of her era and country.) There’s never been a woman like Evita in either Trump administration, and in the first administration, I don’t think the Post ever did a piece on the fashion of first-term Trumpism.
Second-term Trumpism is different. When you’re trying to create a full-on authoritarian regime, you need a way for the women who are loyal to the regime to distinguish themselves from the rest.
In 1938, the connection between fashion and Nazi Germany was distinctly recognized. After Nazi troops marched into Austria in March of 1938, soldiers were greeted by speeches and sweeping declarations of gratitude, even in fashion magazines, rather than bullets or bombs. For example, in April 1938, an Austrian magazine devoted to traditional dress published an article, “Hail Pan-Germany.” It paid specific attention to the country’s interest in the “German traditional costume system” and celebrated the fact that festivals of German dress would allow the Austrians to “become [part] of the whole German people.” The article also proclaimed that unification with Germany and renewed interest in traditional folk attire were part of a larger national project that centered around the völkisch movement and celebration of one’s historic roots. Through this celebration, Germans would not only remember the simpler past, but outsiders like Austria would also be encouraged to join the Nazis through the promise of a simpler lifestyle.
To join this völkisch movement and easy lifestyle, “Hail Pan Germany!” explained that Austrians could don traditional German costumes and therefore become part of the Nazi culture. Clothing was a means of participating in the culture and society of a larger German empire. But what was this traditional German costume for women? Often, it is thought of as a simple wool with a white apron over top; such dresses provided a sense of practicality and harkened to the era of peasantry in the German principalities. In actuality, the Tracht dress, or dirndl, very different from what people imagine it to be. It was a dress with a tight bodice, puffed sleeves, a full skirt that reached either to the ankles or the floor, a headpiece, and either a shawl, jacket, collar, or apron wrapped around the bodice. According to the Austrian article, such dress was not just a government-endorsed image of what Germans should purchase; it considered part of the cultural and social fabric of Nazi Germany. The Tracht dress was the Volk costume, the outfit that proved one’s relationship to the Third Reich by garment. In a way, there seemed to be a prevailing expectation for a racially pure woman to own at one dirndl. The Nazis wanted people to return to their racial or völkisch roots, whether through outings in the woods or wearing the long dress and apron. They hoped that racially pure would take up the loom and not only add Tracht dresses to their wardrobes, but also weave the cloth itself to avoid buying non-German clothing.
When you get serious about fashion as part of your political movement, you use it for a political aim. The political aim of Trumpist fashion is the subjugation of women. They undergo a bunch of painful plastic surgery and dress a certain way to show that they are indeed loyal to the Trumpist agenda, an agenda where women are below men and know their place. They also need to have children while still preserving their appearance. And, even if they’re really smart and accomplished, they need to be subservient to their husbands (Usha Vance is an example of this).
I don’t think it will shock you that none of this kind of analysis was present in the Post piece quoted above:
German fashion in the Third Reich was closely tied to the Nazis’ idea of womanhood. Women were to be mothers and housewives, proud of the biological features that allowed for a woman to do her duty. Through fashion, she was expected to subtly accentuate the features that made her feminine. For this reason, the Weimar Republic rejected the notion of the “New Woman” at its height in the late 20s. In 1925, many critics attacked what they saw as the masculinization of women. As seen in the article “Enough is Enough! Against the Masculinization of Women,” many disliked the trend and found it “unnatural… the look [of a woman dressed in men’s clothing] is detested by every real boy or man.” No longer was it just one husband or father or son who disliked a woman’s fashion decisions, but every man felt displeasure in seeing a woman dressed like himself. The Nazis thus built upon preconceived and accepted desires for a more conservative style for women. Although Hitler did not concern himself with fashion, he too preferred women to look more feminine. He did not see the purpose in regulating a woman’s wardrobe because he saw no harm in a woman looking fashionable.
Hitler wasn’t that concerned with the appearance of women, but his acolytes were. Part of the reason that I think that Trumpism is somewhere between Peronism and Nazism is that Hitler was more of an ascetic than Perón, and Trump, like Perón, wants women to look a certain way, and he doesn’t represent himself as some kind of devotee of clean living. He’s also extremely vain, as was Perón. Still, fashion in his second term is more like Adolf than Juan.
