Sunday, August 16, 2009

Fashion Statement

I have called liberalism a social rather than intellectual viewpoint, but usually refrain from going all the way with that and calling it a fashion statement.

This is in part because for many this is untrue, or at least an exaggeration. Yet I remain convinced that the fashion statement aspect of liberalism is seriously neglected as an avenue of understanding. This Washington Post article that Insty links to is a quite blatant example. If liberals don't want the accusation, they should stop giving us so much ammo.

Following that line of thought, and remembering that "it's not how you dress, it's how you accessorize," notice that certain items, like diaper bags and firearms, are just not going to go with any good outfit. What other things occur to you as politics symbolized by accoutrement?

Hey, you can turn that on conservatives if you want, too.

4 comments:

David said...

There have been hundreds of "progressive" demonstrations in Ms Givhan's home town over the last several years...many of these demonstrators really, really needed fashion advice. Where has she been?

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Ahh, I thought of that too David, but that was needing fashion advice in another direction. I think I'll post one.

Gringo said...

What does one wear to a town hall meeting on health care when the sole reason for attending is to shout down one's congressman like a peevish teenager in the midst of a hormonal rage?


I guess the author doesn’t like it when the protesters follow ∅bama’s advice, who last year told HIS followers, “I want you to argue and get in their face.”

The author is somewhat catty regarding the protesters who show up in t-shirts and baseball caps. But when the protesters dress up, they get dissed. Note Barbara Boxer's comment that the protesters she saw couldn't be genuine: they were too well dressed.

Can't win for losing: the Demos will do anything to Demo-nize their opposition. Damn them for dressing up, damn them for dressing down. Damn them for following ∅bama’s advice, which is apparently considered good advice only when it is used to support ∅bama, not when it is used to oppose ∅bama.

Irrational: constituents who are angry at Congressmen who support 1000 page bills they haven’t read.

Rational: Congressmen who support 1000 page bills they haven’t read.

Der Hahn said...

I'm one of many people who will believe it's not a fashion statement once they starting shopping at Wal-mart and not Whole Foods.