For some background, Ocasio-Cortez is a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist with aspirations
to create an America that works for all of us—not just the wealthiest few,according to her campaign page. Ocasio-Cortez runs on a platform that prioritizes the needs of working families and seeks to implement pro-working-class-policies such as Medicare-for-all, free public universities, and a guaranteed job program. The young politician frequently describes her own background as working-class—pointing to her Bronx upbringing, her mother’s occupation as a housekeeper, and her immigrant family’s economic troubles.
Ocasio-Cortez could be the working-class leader the Democratic Party needs to finally appeal to white-working-class ("WWC") voters, but an outfit choice has apparently aligned her with privileged elites instead. In a photo-op with Interview Mag last month accompanying a conversation with an editor, Ocasio-Cortez is shown wearing a sharp emerald blazer (Gabriela Hearst $1,990), matching trousers (Gabriela Hearst $890), and black pointed-toe heels (Monolo Blahnik $625). Photos of Ocasio-Cortez in the roughly $3,500 suit standing next to New York construction workers quickly prompted an uproar in the conservative web-space, many naming her a hypocrite.
These commenters appear from their profiles to be of the WWC demographic:
Is Ocasio-Cortez more of a limousine liberal than a socialist? . . . She’s wearing a more than a month’s salary for most Americans…and she’s going to lecture us about income inequality and why we should trust her and her ilk with our money. No—hell no. - Matt Vespa, Town hall
[S]ocialists looooove money. . . . Same goes for the hot new socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She's everywhere now as she runs for a New York seat in the U.S. House. And with that comes money — and bling. - Joseph Curl, Daily Wire
No, she's a real socialist. This is what socialism is. You tell the people that they deserve more, and those stinky 'rich' people aren't paying their fair share. Then you join the ranks of the elite, bu[y] expensive clothes, lake houses, Audis, etc., and you're set. This is socialism. This is literally what it is. America First, RedditPopular conservative activist Charlie Kirk questioned Ocasio-Cortez's allegiance to the working-class on Twitter:
a) The alt-right doesn’t seem to understand the concept of magazine shoots— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) September 15, 2018
b) You don’t get to keep the clothes, duh
c) I don’t “pretend” to fight for a Living Wage & Medicare for All. I do it.
d) Get used to me slaying lewks because I am an excellent thrift shopper pic.twitter.com/Nd2m6WoCxF
Kirk's tweet received 16,105 retweets and 37,677 likes, and although he does not purport to speak for the WWC, many may find Kirk's argument compelling. Ocasio-Cortez's outfit choice was also critiqued on prime time television. In a segment on Fox News show Fox and Friends, hosts Katie Pavlich and Pete Hegseth mocked Ocasio-Cortez for her 'expensive tastes.'
Pavlich started by saying: The rising star of the Democratic Party has expensive tastes for a socialist. For a photo shoot for Interview Magazine. Her pant suit — appropriate — retailing more than $2,800 alone. And the shoes $600 bucks.As Ocasio-Cortez pointed out in her response to Kirk, however, the clothes weren’t even hers—as with all magazine shoots, the outfit was borrowed from the designer for publicity purposes. But viewers of Fox News—who are primarily white and many working-class, CNN reports—will probably stop the inquiry at was was aired on Fox and Friends and align her with privileged elites.
As the studio gasped in shock and awe, Hegseth chimed in: It's tough being a socialist. It really is.
Pavlich then added: I mean I want a pair of $600 shoes. I think she should redistribute…hypocrisy at its best.
Ocsasio-Cortez—who almost lost her family home to foreclosure after her father’s death, went to college on student loans, and currently lives in the Bronx on a working class salary—should certainly be considered working-class. Like members of the WWC, Ocsasio-Cortez
grew up seeing how the zip code one is born in determines much of their opportunity.She has more in common with the WWC than any wealthy Republican politician, but it seems that the commentators above will look for any minuscule reason to disregard Ocsasio-Cortez as a privileged liberal. By bringing attention to Ocasio-Cortez's expensive clothes (which, again, were borrowed), conservative media paints the self proclaimed working-class champion as someone who, instead, cannot possibly relate to the WWC.
Instead (and oddly enough), it seems that the WWC identifies more soundly with Republican figures like Donald Trump. Tom Cotton, U.S. Senator from Arkansas, claims that when the liberal media makes fun of Trump's hair, his orange glow, the way he talks, his long tie, and his taste for McDonalds, the WWC somehow sees this as insulting them.
What I don’t think they realize is that out here in Arkansas and the heartland and the places that made a difference in that election, like Michigan and Wisconsin, when we hear that kind of ridicule, we hear them making fun of the way we look, and the way we talk, and the way we think.Apparently the WWC are quick to overlook Trump's taste for $17,000 Brioni suits and the fact that he has never been and never will be working-class (See Trump's $413 million inheritance from his father here). Although Trump may pretend to understand the struggles of the working-class, his policies have certainly done nothing to alleviate them.
Unfortunately, the divide between the Democratic party and the white-working-class is larger than ever. It is this animosity that pushes the WWC toward uber-wealthy real estate moguls and away from candidates, like Ocsasio-Cortez, who understand their plight.
For a discussion on the role of gender in the animosity between the WWC and Democratic party, see a related blog post here.
This falls into a long and bipartisan tradition of criticizing politicians for their clothes. For Trump, his suits are not cut well enough and his ties hang too long. For Obama, his suit was too tan and casual for the presidency.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think the closest analogue to this situation in my mind is when Sarah Palin was criticized for when her campaign bought extremely expensive clothes for her and her family in 2008. Admittedly, keeping $150,000 in clothes is much different than trying on a $3,000 suit for a photoshoot, but still some parallels remain. In both cases, critics play off sexist stereotypes that women like to shop and spend too much money on their clothes. Also in both cases it was implied that both women, who were from working class backgrounds, could never occasionally enjoy expensive things. The rich get a free pass (e.g. Trump) while the working class has to remain in designated socio-economic strata or they are not true to themselves. Neither woman would have worn those clothes before they were given a national stage. Is it so wrong for them to enjoy some of the fruits of their political success?
This is a very interesting take on the unfortunate yet pronounced divide between the white working class and the democratic party. I find it hard to believe that many of the above critics you cited do not understand that designer suits would be offered as product placement for a professional candidates photo shoot. I find it even harder to believe that cast members of Fox and Friends do not only have $600 shoes, but are likely wearing them on a daily basis. I worked for several years in business after undergrad and suit shoes are expensive across the board. $600 is not really an abhorrent price for anyone who enters the business professional world. I have many acquaintances with no work experience, who want to be real estate agents, study while working other jobs to get a license, have a net worth of $0, and are wearing $600 Ferragamo's.
ReplyDeleteI digress, in order to point out that this is sexism and nothing more. I do not believe any of the above critics would have a problem if a similarly situated man, with similar upbringing in the same area were in the photo shoot sporting a nice suit. The problem with this is it distracts people from the actual possibility that this person may have political beliefs in line with the white working class, and that they might support her policies, if the critics were discussing those issues for what they are and not creating a spectacle around the negative connotation of a word like "socialist" and hypocrisy. I would argue that Fox and the like keep their fan base uniformed by avoiding policy considerations, promoting female stereotypes, and creating a frenzy about fashion.
Simple: Trump isn't running around proclaiming that wealthy are evil. Cortez is an absolute hypocrite.
ReplyDelete