The Interlude

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is once again in the news because conservative media pundits are complaining about the expensive clothes she wore for a photoshoot with Vanity Fair. These are, you guessed it, bad-faith arguments made by people who do not understand (or willfully ignore) that designers loan outfits to magazines all the time to promote their brands and that AOC does not own nor did she keep the pricey pantsuits she was photographed in.

The people who point out the cost of AOC’s wardrobe hope to highlight what they consider a hypocrisy of her private spending and public politics. It’s an argument that willfully ignores that the vision she and other democratic socialists have for their country is not one in which everyone is equally poor, but equally prosperous.

On a more frustrating note, these repetitive complaints about how a brown, Bronx-born progressive congressperson spends her money branch off the same twisted tree as racist myths about so-called welfare queens and conspicuous consumption in communities of color. These are arguments critical of individuals rather than the larger economic conditions which leave 1 in 8 Americans below the poverty line. Alongside race, gender plays a role in the continued discussion of AOC’s fashion habits. When billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet, and the late Steve Jobs wear casual clothes, we say they are humble, redefining what it means to look like a CEO, and that their outfits are indicative of a frugal personality that allowed them to skyrocket to wealth. But women constantly face discrimination in the workplace for appearing “unprofessional” — whether it be white employers telling Black women that their natural hair is unacceptable, unspoken dress codes forced upon broadcast news anchors, or airlines requiring female flight attendants to wear heels and makeup all day.

Hypocrisy in fashion is not designers lending their pricey clothes to Vanity Fair for AOC to briefly model. Hypocrisy in politics is not AOC advocating for tuition-free college and occasionally buying herself a nice coat. Hypocrisy is the multitude of Republican politicians who claim to be anti-abortion but secretly support or actively encourage people in their lives to have abortions. Or the contradiction far more inherent in representatives who engage in same-sex relationships while publicly denouncing them.

Constituents elect representatives knowing that a congressional salary exists, and yet people still feel confident enough to make judgements on how that money is spent. This outrage could be directed towards politicians who accept funding beyond their salaries: from lobbyists, super PACs, and companies that put profit over human rights or environmental protection. It could be directed to wealthy people running for offices they are not qualified for (although I will admit we did simultaneously criticize Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for her $40 million yacht and her appalling inexperience in the education sector).

But it is much easier to share a picture of a politician appearing to live a life of luxury than to read an article about a politician’s campaign finances. It is much easier to get angry that someone can afford a brand-name pair of shoes than reflect on our own seemingly frivolous spending habits. AOC never claimed she would live like a nun until everyone could go out and buy a Birkin bag. And even if she did show up to work in nothing more than a potato sack or thrifted sweatshirts, she would probably be called performative. Pundits would say she was pretending to be poor.

We should not deify politicians. In the Vanity Fair profile that caused the most recent uproar about her spending habits, AOC herself says, “I don’t want to be a savior, I want to be a mirror.” She has and will make political decisions that anger Americans, by virtue of being an elected official. But her private life should not occupy so much of our political discourse. Wearing expensive clothes does not contradict AOC’s push for initiatives like the Green New Deal or Medicare for All. Even if you dislike every single policy AOC has ever supported, there is nothing to be gained from ignoring them in favor of saying gotcha! about a cover shoot. I will gladly call her a hypocrite if she ever buys stock in ExxonMobil or cuts down a redwood tree, because then she actually would be one.

But beyond AOC, beyond Bernie Sanders’ second home, beyond the never-ending whining that people who want to change society also currently participate in society, this speaks to an America that both celebrates the “treat yo self” scene from Parks and Recreation and derides anyone living a dignified life while in poverty. This America begs people to consume, to buy American products, to fall into the vicious car/college/house debt cycle, but actively defunds public programs meant to assist in these goals.

The late fashion historian and photojournalist Bill Cunningham said, “Fashion is the armor to survive the reality of everyday life.” A lover of street style, Cunningham understood that clothes were not frivolous: they are our first defense, a democratizing force, and our greatest opportunity to tell the world who we are without opening our mouths.

But many Americans still talk big game about equal opportunity and freedom, only to flinch at any outward display of prosperity that does not match some arbitrary socioeconomic status. And they impose this judgement disproportionately on people of color and other women. The America that criticizes AOC’s outfits is the America that loves to tell its most oppressed residents: pull yourself up by the bootstraps, but how dare those boots be name brand!