Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Trump orders a dress code in the White House - Financial Times

Donald Trump is trying to implement some sartorial rigour within his administration. According to intelligence from the White House, the president believes his staff should “have a certain look” and aspire to “be sharply dressed”. Men should wear a tie. Female colleagues have been told to “dress like a woman”, whatever that means. Perhaps he wants them to swing through the White House on tree vines, wearing jungle pelts in the manner of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Jane?
As with so many of his executive orders so far, it’s predictably disappointing. And possibly misguided. One of the few joys to find in this new world order is in observing just how uniformly shambolic and ill-matched it is. I assumed the administration’s chaotic deportment was in fact a marvellously choreographed campaign to deflect “the opposition party” from the fine details of the day.
What better way to disguise your flailing incompetence at a press briefing, for example, than by wearing a tie of such exceptional ugliness that no one will really hear what you’re trying to say? Sean Spicer knows how to make headlines. The White House press secretary’s clumsy attempts to explain the botched military operations that led to the death of civilians and a Navy seal following a raid on Yemen last week were overlooked as focus fell instead on the diagonally striped monstrosity in poison yellow and navy tied around his neck.

I just assumed the tie was sartorial spin. Call it Project Blind: dull the people to the ineptitude of your policymaking and practice by wearing an eye-wateringly unattractive wardrobe. Donald Trump’s ill-fitting suit, Fanta complexion and feathery comb-over are already well documented: but he looks almost suave compared to the unshaven Steve Bannon, with his livid red proboscis, stained T-shirts and straining shirt buttons. So slovenly is he, and so swollen with choler, he seems to ooze with an especially Chaucerian brand of humour. Watching him slumped in his flannel shirts in the Oval Office, I am reminded of The Nun’s Priest Tale: “For God’s love, as tak som laxatyf.”
Then there’s Mike Pence, who wears smarter white button-down shirts, electric-coloured ties and navy suits, with all the self-possession of a Weeble. Or secretary of defence James Mattis, cadaverous in camo. Attorney-general Jeff Sessions wears pocket-sized suits and ties in reflux yellow and spotted vermilion: he carries them both with the skittery, overly keen mien of a warm-up host.
For comic opportunities alone, I hope Trump has directed his female staffers to follow the lead of Kellyanne Conway in their efforts to look “like a woman”. The counsellor to the president is the undisputed star of this fashion circus: a feisty, former cheerleader who, to judge by the state of her inauguration ensemble, takes her style inspiration from the Peruvian refugee Paddington Bear.
; a muddle of lurid jackets and look-at-me ensembles in primary brights — citrine, vermilion, blood — that are every bit as jarring as her coarse rhetoric. She embraces the type of womanly power glamour observed by weather girls and newscasters: her sleeveless dresses testify to a woman’s right to bare arms or, in the case of the ruffled gold jacket she wore to canvass at Trump Tower last November, the right to resemble a gilded valance sheet. But time has been cruel to Conway. Where once she might have been described as perky, the first weeks in office have lent her sleep-starved, kohl-rimmed looks the ravaged expression of a raptor. I can’t wait to see what she’ll wear next.
Whatever about “dressing sharp”. It must take a concerted effort, a willingness even, to look so collectively dreadful. It’s also in keeping with the evolution (or should that be devolution?) of world-leader style. After years of slick homogeny on the political stage — slim, dark-suited, smug — we’re now seeing a return of the fashion maverick: think Yanis Varoufakis and his football manager leathers, or Nigel Farage in his Toad-of-Toad-Hall Crombie and tulip-pink ties.
Similarly, British prime minister Theresa May’s affection for a voluminous tartan suit by Vivienne Westwood has been much discussed in recent weeks. As with the fabled leopard-print shoes in which she strode to power, May has worn the suits in moments of political — and personal — vulnerability, to announce her determination to lead the Conservative party, for example, or lay down a challenging Brexit strategy. Like Spicer’s tie, the tartan suit has proven a nifty decoy: capable of sucking up headlines and loud enough to distract from the political business of the day.
It may look daft, but the wacky wardrobe is a formidable weapon: bad clothes stimulate alternative conversations, they’re diverting and normalising. Conway’s flowerpot hats are awful, Bannon’s flak jacket is filthy and Spicer’s ties are plain obnoxious, but they all throw light on the individual that wears them. They give the wearer personality. Even more significantly, the clothes are humanising: one could almost feel sorry for Spicer; while Bannon’s gorilla-like bearing has become as morbidly fascinating as his guerrilla-style of governance. It’s all quite stupefying to behold — which, presumably, is the point.
So rather than insist his aides smarten up, if I were Trump I’d order everyone to keep on clowning around: brighter ties, Hawaiian print shirts, lots of gold lamé. Dressing like a fool never seemed so wise.

If your opinion is against Trump it is fake - Huffington Post


Natalie Jackson
Senior Polling Editor, The Huffington Post
Bright and early Monday morning, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to express his frustration with polling numbers on his policies. He specifically compared “any negative polling” to the CNN, ABC and NBC election polls and labeled them all “fake news.”


This tactic seems to be Trump’s modus operandi for dealing with anything that casts him in a negative light ― publicly call it “fake” and claim he knows better. He’s trying to manipulate the public into not believing the polling numbers that we know he’s rabidly consuming.

Unfortunately for Trump, that’s not how polling works. Polls, when done right, represent the views of millions of Americans ― with some room for error, of course, since they’re based on samples of a few hundred or a thousand people. The specific polls Trump called out are very high quality and were actually very close to the national election outcome.

The ABC News poll, conducted in partnership with the Washington Post, showed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton up by 4 points in their final national poll, 47 percent to 43 percent. Clinton won the national popular vote, by a little more than 2 percentage points, 48 percent to 45.9 percent. The poll underestimated Clinton’s vote by 1 point and Trump’s vote by 2.9 points. That’s a pretty good performance, well within the poll’s margin of error.

The last NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll also had Clinton winning by 4 points. That poll showed higher third party and undecided vote proportions and had Clinton with only 44 percent and Trump at 40 percent. But the 4-point margin was within a reasonable range of the result.  CNN’s final election poll was conducted nearly 2 weeks prior to the election on Oct. 20-23, and had Clinton up by 5 points, a bit farther from the actual result, but not outrageous for 2 weeks prior to the election.
Trump’s problem with these polls isn’t that they weren’t true representations of Americans’ opinions. It’s that they didn’t show him winning the popular vote ― which he didn’t win, another fact he has sought to discredit by claiming 3-5 million people illegally voted. Now he’s doing the same thing with polling about his policies.

Technically he’s correct that “people want border security and extreme vetting.” Some people do. Trump’s immigration policies are popular with a segment of Americans, but how many support the policy depends on how pollsters ask about the policy. Only one poll shows a majority of Americans approving of Trump’s travel ban policy, but in several polls a majority disapproves.


However, Trump isn’t just trying to claim majority support. He clearly seeks to discredit all negative opinions with comments like “any negative polls are fake news.” This is unusual and alarming behavior from a president.

Plenty of presidents probably haven’t liked their polling numbers before. President Barack Obama probably wasn’t thrilled that his health care law has been mostly viewed unfavorably since 2010. President George W. Bush couldn’t have been satisfied with his job approval ratings, which steadily declined throughout his second term.

But neither Obama nor Bush tried to discredit American opinion. Trump seems to think he can ignore anything that isn’t favorable to him, and that we should just believe his decisions are best for the country based on his own “accumulation of data.”


We shouldn’t believe that from Trump or from anyone else. As I wrote last week, if the data aren’t cited and you can’t see the source, that’s the first indication that you shouldn’t believe it’s real. The same standard applies to the president.

Trump is smart: He’s attacking institutions that have public trust issues, and he gets a double whammy by hitting media polling. But even if you dislike polls, the claim that “any negative” information is fake is a dangerous one. If he uses it for polls, he’s likely to use it for other facts as well. That’s a very authoritarian tactic.

Don’t let Trump get away with labeling anything he doesn’t like “fake.” Keep making your voice heard in polls and in every way possible.



MORE: Donald Trump Political Opinion Polls
Suggest a correction