'The Golden State Is eating Its Golden Geese' California Defaults on Loan: Businesses...
Rescue Party: The Dems Desperate Search for a Normal 2028 Presidential Candidate Begins
Daytime Dysfunction: 'The View' Continues to Give ABC's Lawyers MAJOR Headaches
Literally NO ONE Is Asking for This: CBS News Insists 'Some' Voters Are...
Heaven on Earth: Take a Glimpse Inside the Restored Notre Dame Cathedral
Unpopular Opinion: Rand Paul Warns Trump Against Using Military to Deport Illegals, Gets...
Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida AG Pam Bondi for Attorney General
Bob Casey Jr Finally Concedes to Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania Senate Race
This TOTALLY Did Not Happen! Climate Activist Says Hurricanes Convinced His Barber Climate...
LET THEM FIGHT: Cenk Uygur Calls Out Joy Behar and 'The View' and...
Daily Mail: We're All Gonna Die From Climate Change! (In 75 Years, That...
'You'll See Things Our Way': Jaguar DOUBLES DOWN on Cringe Ad With Vaguely...
Mayor of Dearborn, Michigan Will Have Netanyahu Arrested If He Enters the City
Biden's America: NFL Issues Security Alert for Players Regarding S. American Crime Syndica...
Karine Jean-Pierre Explains How Much Cheaper Your Thanksgiving Meal Is This Year Thanks...

NOW they tell us: New York Times warns that Trump presidency could shake fashion industry to the core

Some Clinton supporters didn’t hesitate to blame the New York Times for the part it played in Donald Trump’s election by reporting on Hillary’s home-brew email server, thus bringing it to the attention of the public, not to mention Congress.

Advertisement

We’ll never know what difference it would have made had the Times chosen to withhold the story until the election — so it seems shocking now, a week later, that the New York Times is alerting the voting public to the effect of a Trump presidency on the world’s top fashion designers, who were certainly looking forward to dazzling with world with Hillary’s inauguration pantsuit.

Sure, the article is tucked away in the Times Style section, but it certainly tackles its subject matter with all the seriousness of a drone strike; no, really:

This new reality has left fashion feeling bereft, in a way that goes beyond backing the losing candidate and to the core of the industry’s identity.

Now the industry has to wrestle with what happens next: how it defines itself if it is marginalized — reduced to mere decoration — in a Trump administration, and whether there will be repercussions for either its pledge of allegiance to the president-elect’s opponent or some of the more angry postelection statements designers have made on social media.

Advertisement

Plenty have said it over the past week, but it bears repeating: they just don’t get it.

https://twitter.com/gdarci300/status/797832832798388224

https://twitter.com/flashg3rdon/status/797769148776337409

The Times notes that, “ultimately, it was the baseball cap that became the sartorial symbol that represented the winning campaign.” That’s true, but don’t forget that Hillary’s first campaign store offering wasn’t the “Made for History” line of designer T-shirts, but the “Grillary Clinton” barbecue apron and the “Chillary Clinton” beer koozie — no wonder the fashion industry was so anxious to dress Madam President Clinton.

Advertisement

That’s not the only thing that has the New York Times nervous. What’s going to happen to Washington, D.C. itself after the Obamas — “African-American, youthful, attractive and urbane” — head back to Chicago? Will the “influx of highly educated young, gay and diverse professionals” become a mass exodus?

https://twitter.com/heatherwilhelm/status/798166818544386048

https://twitter.com/Grumpy_Hoosier/status/798168823803346944

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement