Kamala Harris, vice president, has been featured on the latest cover of Vogue, a portrayal that rather optimistically verges on hagiography. The digital facsimile greeted the public in the morning hours of a typical Friday, showcasing Harris, clad in a Gabriela Hearst suit and the infamous Tiffany earrings, at her residence in Washington, DC.
This extravagantly produced cover might be the magazine’s final one prior to the impending election, as they seem to have latched onto the notion that it’s Harris’s time in the spotlight. The pitch they’ve made to the public leans heavily into the narrative of Harris as a beacon of hope in a time of uncertainty caused by President Biden’s inexplicable decision to drop out of his reelection campaign.
The general populace, thrust into a whirlpool of skepticism and cautious optimism, now had their gaze fixed on Kamala Harris. Interestingly, Vogue, ever so subtly, decided to elevate the vice president to the status of an unwavering torchbearer for current times. However, outside of the magazine’s favorable lens, opinions widely differ.
For the cover image, captured on the seventh of October, they selected a snapshot showing Harris donned in one of her pricey designer suits — and seemingly sporting those Tiffany earrings she had worn during her debate with former President Donald Trump. A choice of accessories, it seems, that has proved more memorable than the substance of the debate itself.
These earrings, attached to the night of the debate have raised quite a few eyebrows, fuelling a wave of theories. Conspiracy theorists, often seen lurking in the darker corners of the internet, have speculated about whether these were actually surreptitious audio headphones cunningly camouflaged as pearl earrings.
Attempting to stand out and be unforgettable, ironically, drew more unexpected attention than the typical political talking points. However, parallels have been drawn between this tactic and other notorious political ‘boosters’, in which politicians may resort to desperate measures when faced with formidable opposition or unfavorable conditions.
It’s fair to mention, though, the cover photo was likely meant to convey confidence and assurance, in line with many other public figures who have been caricatured before electoral tests. Yet, when one peels back the layers of the choreographed attire, it seems little more than a glossy mask meant to distract from much more substantial issues at hand.
The lens of public media often romanticizes potential leaders, magnifying their superficial qualities while dimming their actual ideologies. Despite widespread concerns regarding pressing issues on the national stage, it’s always easier for many to discuss fashion choices rather than delve into the gritty details of policy perspectives.
‘Rescue acts’ were the words used by Vogue to describe the high expectations that enveloped Kamala Harris after Biden’s pullout. But how well can someone perform such lofty deeds when their most publicized achievement seems to have been picking out high-end earrings for a nationally televised debate?
Yet, the hope the magazine seems to pin on Harris is not universally shared. Instead of being an individual summoned for a national rescue, Harris now finds herself under extraordinary scrutiny, with each of her decisions likely to draw criticism with the same intensity it draws applause, if not greater. This is a reality that the public relations spin of a magazine cover can’t disguise.
Furthermore, it becomes necessary to question the level of symbols over substance, and if such an approach truly serves the public or the nation. Is it possible that, instead of idealizing a candidate based on their wardrobe, we should be more focused on their ability to lead and address real-world problems?
In conclusion, the latest cover depicting Kamala Harris from Vogue’s perspective could be viewed as a disappointing representation of our times. If it’s any indicator of the current political climate, one must worry about the superficial judgments that seem to replace serious political discussion.
Moreover, we must be cautious about the imagery being promoted by media entities, as they have the power to shape perceptions and dictate discourses. In the case of someone like Kamala Harris, it’s essential to remember that appearances are only part of the story, and the real tale might be a lot less rosy than what’s portrayed in glossy magazine prints.
Ultimately, it’s about choosing leaders who deliver results rather than those with an impressive fashion sense. Shouldn’t the worth of a vice-president or a president be measured by their policies, leadership skills and the positive impact they can make on society, as opposed to how well they can dress up for a magazine cover?