Michelle Obama is the first first lady in recent history to knowingly or unknowingly use the visibility of her sartorial choices to identify with every strata of American society — creating nearly $3 billion of wealth for the clothing labels she dons in the process. For example, when she chose then little-known designer Jason Wu for her inauguration gown, Wu instantly became a household name who was later picked to partner with Target to launch a capsule collection at affordable retail prices. With one stroke, Obama’s choice enabled Wu to achieve the American dream of growing his upscale business, while it gave every woman the opportunity to stock her closet with a Jason Wu “original” at accessible prices.
Unlike most of her predecessors, Obama is not faithful to one designer, house or label. Jackie Kennedy almost exclusively wore Hubert de Givenchy. Nancy Reagan was famously faithful to a small cadre of designers including Bill Blass. Even when Betty Ford downgraded her closet to address inflation concerns during her husband’s term, she (publicly) went with one choice, Albert Capraro. Conversely, Michelle Obama matches high-fashion pieces from the likes of Balenciaga with off-the-rack finds from stores like White House Black Market. She even extends her favor to indie labels like Zero Maria Cornejo.
The first lady’s closet represents the vastness of America’s fashion appetites, plus its multi-tiered class system — and as a result, the country’s economic identity crisis. While America celebrates the ability to amass great wealth, it resents displays of said wealth — it seems especially by Mrs. O. Just as Sarah Palin’s salt of the earth positioning as a hockey mom initially worked as an antidote to one-time presidential hopeful John McCain’s inability to remember how many homes he owned, Palin’s “I’m every woman” imaging boomeranged on her when it was revealed that the 2008 GOP campaign spent $150,000 to outfit her. Palin vehemently insisted she did not ask for the wardrobe makeover, but it made no difference. She could no longer claim “every woman” authenticity once those price tags had been spied.
American resentment seems to grow in some circles when those displaying wealth don’t fit the archetype Americans have become accustomed to, even if the rich have earned it. When “news” broke that Michelle Obama sported a (gorgeous) $6,800 J. Mendel jacket to the pre-Olympic reception for heads of state in Buckingham Palace, conservative blogs swooped in yet again to bash her spending habits. These same outlets called out the “lamestream media” for critiquing Ann Romney’s decision to wear a $990 Reed Krakoff blouse on CBS Morning News in May, while believing more should have been made of Obama’s “queenly” pick.
Of course, many of these right-leaning outlets have remained mum about the personal fiscal choices Ann Romney has made regarding her clothes, and her vastly greater bounty of riches with which to splurge. More importantly, most have nothing to say about her husband’s proposed tax plan, which promises to disproportionately benefit those who can afford both Reed Krakoff blouses and J. Mendel jackets without a problem. Conservative watchdogs also forget to note that the style watchers that hailed Michelle Obama’s J. Mendel jacket lambasted her choice of a simple cardigan, blouse, and skirt three years ago when she met England’s queen, calling the ensemble unfit for her first official visit with British royalty.
Meanwhile, just weeks ago, the first lady was attacked for her support of low-cost fashion retailers like H&M and Target by Elizabeth Cline, author of Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion. “I think it’s ridiculous that she’s always lauded as this example of democratic fashion or that she’s so American because her fashion is accessible,” Cline told The Huffington Post. “Why are we so excited when we see our first lady in cheap, imported clothes?”
It seems that first lady Michelle Obama cannot win. She is either too posh, too plain, or to be taken to task for the state of international clothing manufacturing. Constantly batted between the poles that label her either an out-of-touch Marie Antoinette or an unfit representative of America, it bears noting that the collective’s fascination with Michelle Obama’s clothing only confirms her uniquely iconic status, and her importance as a factor in the coming presidential election.
Just as Jackie Kennedy’s pillbox-hat-wearing panache captured the public’s imagination in the Camelot era, which proved to be an advantage to her husband, Michelle Obama — with her 66 percent approval rating — is a priceless asset in President Obama’s reelection bid. Fashion industry titans like Anna Wintour, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Donna Karan clamor to fundraise for the Obamas, specifically citing Michelle Obama’s effortlessly cool personification of a designer-fluent, committed mother as one reason they are enamored with the first couple.
The opposite is true of Ann Romney with respect to the fashion industry. Just as Romney does not announce the labels she wears, designers are not eager to shout out her connection with them either. Tellingly, when she was critiqued for wearing the Reed Krakoff bird blouse, a rep for the designer quickly issued the distancing statement: “We had nothing to do with it… She must have bought it from Saks or Bergdorf’s, we definitely didn’t send it to her. [W]e 100 percent didn’t send it to her.”
With this type of relationship to the fashion world, Ann Romney’s choice of designers might remain a secret as tightly held as the contents of Mitt’s tax returns.
Yet, the role of fashion and style isn’t something only the wives of the presidential hopefuls are contending with. On the campaign trail, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are forgoing neckties, cuffing up their shirtsleeves, and choosing ill-fitting “soccer Dad” jeans in an effort to appear more like the “every man” they hope will vote for them. With the election less than 100 days away, and the projected race so tight, even the men understand how important it is to communicate the idea that they will represent all Americans and not just a select few — through their outfits.
But perhaps more than any other player in the election, Michelle Obama understands the power of personal appearance most intimately. Four years of navigating the intense scrutiny of her fashion choices has given the first lady a shrewd ability to reach across the aisle — as it were — without presenting a false image of herself. She wears cute, inexpensive clothing for everyday occasions, and breaks out her best for high-profile events — just like every other American woman — within her budget.
And Michelle’s budget reflects what she and her husband, who both hail from humble beginnings, have earned through the power of the American spirit. It’s a fact that the Ivy League-educated former attorney and one-time hospital executive became successful before becoming first lady through her own hard work and determination. Her family wealth has grown with the president’s increasing book sales. Michelle’s fabulous wardrobe was bought with the resulting royalties, unlike the practices of Romney’s Bain Capital, which has been involved in outsourcing American jobs.
To judge Michelle Obama’s occasional choice of expensive clothing items is to disparage the American values — and supportive education policies — that helped place them within her reach.
But whether Mrs. O wears a Sophie Theallet dress to visit a children’s hospital in Ghana, or treks in Lanvin sneakers to serve others at a D.C. Food Bank, her wealth does not distance the first lady from those who can’t afford the pricier pieces in her closet. In fact, quite the opposite. Michelle Obama’s style embodies the ability to achieve one’s best, look one’s best, and feel one’s best without forgetting those who need help on the way to becoming their best.
Isn’t that what being American is all about?
Follow Nana Ekua Brew-Hammond on Twitter at @nanaekua