|
|
 |
|
Here's the latest spin
on dressing for success
of TheColumnists.com
Think hard, and you may remember a best selling book of the 70s called “Dress for Success.” It was sort of sartorial sociology, giving pointers on how to create the impression you wanted to make on other people through the clothing you wore. Brown is friendly; don’t wear a dead-black suit; no plaids with stripes and don’t, by all that is holy, wear brown shoes with a blue suit.
“Dress for Success” was so, um, successful that it became part of the language. In later years, it was spoken of with a bit of sneering irony, but still…
I mention it because while I was watching the Democratic debate on CNN the other evening (the few, the brave, the TV audience) I noticed the remarkable similarity in garb among the male debaters. Navy blue suit, white shirt, red or blue tie. Sen. Hillary Clinton, of course, was wearing a pantsuit. Anticipating flaming attacks from her debate rivals, she said it was made of asbestos.
The Democratic hopefuls were resurrecting the old "Dress for Success" concept. Rest assured, none of them stood in front of the closet and said, “Gosh, what will I wear to the debate tonight? Oh, I guess I’ll just throw on this old blue suit. No one will notice that gravy on the cuff.”
Political consultants would pass out en masse to hear something like that. It’s no coincidence that the candidates were dressed alike. The suits, shirts and ties were carefully tested and focus-grouped before the hopefuls stepped onto the stage. We’re in the era of engineered clothing for politicians.
Dennis Kucinich seemed to be the only member of the crew who was less than perfect --his necktie knot seemed a little overly large and careless. I just don’t know about Kucinich. If a candidate can’t be trusted to do a decent job with tying his necktie, can you really trust him to face down Vladimir Putin?
Bill Richardson was wearing one of those two-buttons-on-the-cuff shirts. Horrors! Well, maybe he and Dennis were each trying to connect with the common man, who probably buys shirts with sleeve lengths in 33-34 instead of the more expensive exact-sleeve-length variety. And Joe Sixpack probably isn’t any better with a necktie than Dennis is.
If so, Richardson and Kucinich were probably misguided. There probably aren’t any Joe Sixpacks in the audience at this early stage of the political game - only dedicated political junkies.
Gaffes--if that’s what they were--aside, clothing was part of the effort to tell you something good about the candidate. Navy blue suits lend authority; white shirts mean honesty and straightforwardness. That’s right out of “Dress for Success.” I don’t know if any of them thought they were wearing a “power tie,” but red used to be so regarded. At least, until yellow became the power tie color.
You will see the same outfits when the Presidential debates between the Democratic and Republican candidates roll around. If Sen. Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she will wear some variety of pantsuit. Cleavage? Don’t even think about it.
What you wear has always been an important part of the political package. That’s because if you look like a slob, voters do not conclude that you are merely careless in your garb. They conclude you aren’t competent--at anything.
Times change, of course, and what was demanded back in the 80s isn’t necessarily de rigueur today. In 2004, for instance, candidate John Kerry frequently appeared on the stump without a necktie. George Bush liked to shed his suit jacket and roll up his sleeves. It would be an exceptional candidate who did that 10 years earlier.
Do you remember the to-do about Al Gore’s switch to earth tones partway through the 2000 campaign in an effort to make him look less stiff? Very important stuff, both on the surface and subliminally. And all thoroughly tested before the candidate put it on, even though Earth-tone Al should have been thought through with more of an eye to the effect of the change itself on the electorate. It wasn’t so much the clothes that caused the comments as the obvious switch halfway through the campaign and the attendant aura of a vacillating candidate.
I have yet to see any marked difference between the Democrats and Republicans in their debate togs. If there is a difference, it may be that the Republicans seem to favor French cuffs more than the Democrats do. But for the most part, their clothes seem interchangeable, undoubtedly because both Republican and Democratic consultants have run the tests, produced the same results, and given the same advice: “Don’t wear anything that will draw attention to your clothes. Don’t wear anything kooky, or you’ll blow the soccer-mom vote.”
In the last analysis, does the color of necktie or type of pantsuit favored by a candidate really say anything about his or her ability to lead the Free World? Probably not. But the fact that the candidates’ clothing choices are carefully calculated tell us something about the sophistication and down-to-the-shoelaces detail that goes into modern political campaigning.
Just remember all this the next time you see a candidate on television earnestly seeking your vote: Consider what that necktie says about his foreign policy.
©2007 by Charles M. McFadden. The McFadden caricature is ©2001 by Jim Hummel. The cartoon is from IMSI's Master Clips Collection, 1895 Francisco Blvd. E., San Rafael, CA, 94901-5506, USA. This column first posted Nov. 26, 2007.
You can comment
on this column online. Please address your message to either
"The Editors" or Chuck McFadden. To send an email,
click here and don't forget to mention Chuck's name: talkback@thecolumnists.com
|
|
|
Archives |
|
|