Fashion has always been capable of practical functionality: for warmth, cover or protection. As fashion has evolved, it now holds the power to communicate a sense of individuality and act as an outlet for personal expression.
The rise of the 90s ‘Dad cap’ is proof of hats’ fashionable function, extending them from purely functional sun-protectors to a vital accessory. Traditionally displaying the name of a holiday resort in the Hamptons or Cornwall in white curling letters, these caps have been transformed in recent years to hold much more significance.
Why should expressing political ideology not follow suit?
The hats littering the heads of students in St Andrews, adorned with the hood of a North Face jacket amid Scottish winters, are typically of the trend-following or golf-course sporting nature. However, the awareness of famously politicised hats, like the cult-following 'Make America Great Again' cap, perhaps silently informs these choices to avoid any visible mention of American politics on the 'concrete catwalk' of South Street.
A red hat, complete with white piping, topping a sweaty orange forehead, branded with the promise of an untouchable dream. Although Donald Trump’s criticism ranges far and wide, the phenomenon of the 2016 MAGA hat is one of his greatest marketing schemes to date, rare evidence of his usually absent ‘business savvy’.
It is the single most recognisable sign of Trump’s following: proof of how omnipresent politics is in fashion, but also how personal and curated everyday fashion is for many more people than just those who claim either a professional or personal affiliation with the fashion world. The social scope of this hat is so large that any red and white cap is assumed, even as far removed from the political scene of DC as St Andrews is, to be endorsing the former President’s second campaign.
The Harris-Walz hat sold on Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ website, comes as one of many tactical decisions made by the campaign to appeal to a younger voting demographic, but also serves as a direct parallel to the ‘MAGA’ hat.
The Harris-Walz hat, sold for $40, claims to be 'the most iconic political hat in America', directly encroaching onto Trump’s once solid reign over political fashion. The hat holds multitudes. The camo print directly appeals to the traditionally right-wing demographic of hunters and farmers who are increasingly turning to the Democratic party for the first time. The hat is also marketed towards ‘midwestern princesses’ and holds remarkable similarity to pop-sensation Chappelle Roan’s merch, again appealing to a demographic of voters who may have withheld their vote from either party based on a LGBTQ+ stance. This hat, so simple in design and execution, has the power to influence the outcome of a general election.
Fashion and branding have become integral to political success and a fundamental part of what should be very serious campaigns. The lengths to which the Harris-Walz campaign are stretching themselves to is in equal parts to be admired and judged.
While Kamala Harris is elevated online for her ability to connect to younger generations’ sense of culture, and often given support for her outfit choices, her political message is lost on those she is so desperately trying to convince to vote. The politicisation of the hat, sold for donations 'to the Harris Victory fund' thus undermines her political message while simultaneously blasting Harris’ name unanimously across America.
The commodification of politics and the consumerist habits of the US are appealed to and taken advantage of here: the need to be an ‘iconic’ celebrity as opposed to the serious and intelligent politician and juror that Harris showed herself to be in the presidential debates demonstrates the breakdown of American politics since the inception of social media. In this way, fashion encourages the polarisation of voters: by stooping to Trump’s level to create a ‘Kult of Kamala’, the two distinct camps of Republican and Democrat are further ostracised from one another, all prompted by the colour and slogan of a hat.
Although neither Trump nor Harris is the first to have their presidencies endorsed via fashion, the MAGA hat was the first mass-produced and accessible piece of clothing which so directly encourages one single President, and Harris’ the second.
While Trump’s garish red displays the message he has long since abandoned, the industrial orange words Harris-Walz are not only politically intelligent, but culturally relevant. The awareness of micro trends and general fashion-savvy from the Harris-Walz campaign in the choice of both camo and golf style enhances the reach of the hat and makes it wearable in a fashion scene that fetishises and glorifies a “working-class” or “blue collar” aesthetic for masculine-dressers.
This ‘wearability’ of the hat is key, shown in the fact that they sold out in thirty minutes after the first drop. However, this is ultimately another micro-trend fallacy; it is entirely possible that every effort made by the Harris-Walz campaign to appeal to those outside of their solid voter demographic will be wasted – ultimately the American public will latch onto a chance to consume a new and ‘trendy’ item of clothing, regardless of intention or understanding of the cause at hand.
Fashion is inherently political not only when it is intentionally and ostensibly politicised, but also when the fabric, hours of craft and hierarchy of distribution of profit is considered. Both Harris and Trump’s political fashion are products of a capitalist consumer fashion culture, rather than ground-breaking manifestations of pure political ideology.
Comments