Pod Save America - The Politics of Fashion: How What We Wear Shapes the World

Episode Date: October 16, 2025

Fashion isn’t just functional — it’s transformative. It can be a form of political speech, like when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made headlines in a white gown emblazoned with “Tax the Rich.” It can also be a statement of resistance, as when the Black Panthers adopted black berets, a uniform that came to symbolize unity and power. Understanding the language of fashion is key to understanding the times we live in. It’s a translator for anyone trying to navigate this moment and one of the ten steps to reclaiming freedom and power as we challenge norms and assert our identity. Those of us who are pro-democracy may one day need to show who we are just as clearly. What we wear might matter more than we think. This week on Assembly Required, Stacey is joined by fashion editor and Pulitzer Prize–winning writer Robin Givhan. She breaks down how fashion reflects our culture back to us and what that reflection reveals about the political moment we’re in.Learn & Do More:Be Curious: If you enjoyed my conversation with Robin, pick up her latest book, Make It Ours: Crashing the Gates of Culture with Virgil Abloh.Solve Problems: Of the 100 billion garments produced each year, 92 million tonnes end up in landfills — the equivalent of one garbage truck full of clothes every single second. To help reduce waste, be mindful of your clothing consumption and shopping habits. Before clicking “buy” on that fast fashion site for the latest trend at the cheapest price, ask yourself: Do I really need this? Can I buy it from a sustainable source? Can I thrift something similar instead? Do Good:If you have old clothes or have been meaning to clean out your closet, don’t throw them away. Instead, consider donating them to those in need. Goodwill, your place of worship, or local homeless shelters are great places to start.  Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Assembly required with Stacey Abrams is brought to you by Acorns. Thinking about how to save for your future can be daunting. Money can make us feel a lot of things, but what if it made you feel hopeful? Get more out of your money and start building a better future with Acorns. Acorns is the financial wellness app that helps you invest for your future, save for tomorrow, and spend smarter today. Acorns makes it easy to start doing more with your money. In fact, you can start automatically investing with just your spare change. You don't need to be a financial whiz.

Acorns puts money into an expert-built portfolio to make sure you're investing wisely, not wildly. Plus, Acorns can support your money goals in life, a new car, a first home, investing for your kids, saving up for retirement, and so much more. Acorns even has a checking account that automatically invest for you and an emergency. fund that grows your money, and it's all in one easy-to-use app. That's why I like telling my friends and family about Acorns. Sign up now, and Acorns will boost your new account with a $5 bonus investment. Join the over 14 million all-time customers who've already saved and invested over $25 billion with Acorns. Head to Acorns.com slash assembly or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns.

Tier 2 compensation provided. Investing involves risk. Acorn Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. You important disclosures at acorns.com slash assembly. Welcome to Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams from Cricket Media. I'm your host, Stacey Abrams. Growing up in Southern Mississippi, I didn't really pay. paid too much attention to fashion. We shared basically the only mall with the city next door and the big chains hadn't quite discovered the Gulfport-Beluxi corridor. But my older sister was an aficionado of the magazines and the looks they covered from New York, London, Milan, Paris. So I learned a bit by osmosis. My tutelage was accelerated when I went to Spelman

College, started watching Project Runway, and then when I ran for public office. What I wore became as much a topic of conversation sometimes as the legislation I voted on. The intersection of fashion and politics can seem strange, but they are closely aligned. So clothes aren't just functional, and the right combination of circumstances, they are transformative. What we wear is a form of self-expression, a way to share who we are without saying a word. Choosing between a dress and a pair of slacks, a solid or a vibrant pattern, these are languages all their own. They can speak to confidence, ambition, and even power. Fashion can also be a form of political speech literally.

At the 2021 Met Gala, AOC made headlines in a white satin dress with, quote, tax the rich, spray painted in bold red letters, garnering both praise and criticism. In 2019, Lena Waith and designer Kirby Jean Ramond wore matching suits emblazoned with, quote, black drag queens invented camp and, quote, fix your credit, pool money, buy back the block. Singer Joy Villa arrived in a red, white, and blue gown that read, quote, Trump 2020 in stark white text. And in every case, the world noticed. But political resistance in fashion has the capacity to be subtle yet unmistakable. Beyond slogans and statements throughout history, clothing has been a quiet yet powerful tool of defiance, a way to challenge norms, assert identity, and reclaim power. We refer to them in the Ten Steps as Disrupt and Deny. The suffragettes dressed to reflect the Edwardian feminine ideal, purple for dignity, white for purity, and green for hope.

Those colors became synonymous with their movement. My boss, former Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin, the first black woman to lead a major city, wore a flower every day of her administration, a nod to a constituent and to a promise of a new day. In the 1970s, the Black Panther. adopted berets as part of their uniform, a symbol of unity and power. And in 2016, Beyonce and her backup dancers pay homage to that legacy, wearing black berets during the Super Bowl halftime show. And then there's the conversation about Bad Bunny. From Dashikis worn at formal events to luxe jabs and stylized sarongs, fashion connects continents, movements, and meaning. When I ran for governor in 2018, I faced critique and waves of advice about how to best meet the moment and what I wore to do so.

Some wanted me to play down my curves in favor of boxy suits and somber tones. Instead, I chose dresses that emphasized both the change of the guards and colors that highlighted rather than dampened my darker skin tones. People noticed. and for some, my refusal to age myself with hyper modesty or to hide myself with shapeless garb became a statement all its own. Understanding the language of fashion is key to understanding our current age, and it can be a translator for those in search of how to navigate the present moment. One of the 10 steps to freedom and power, fighting back against authoritarianism, is how we present ourselves to the world, how we show which side of history we not only stand on, but how we plan to build it. Maga has chosen a label and a color and a regime. We know it when we see it.

Those of us who are pro-democracy may one day need to also show who we are. What we wear might matter. So, today I'm joined by the legendary fashion editor and Pulitzer Prize winning writer, Robin Givon. She'll talk to us about how fashion reflects our culture back at us and what that culture tells us about the political moment we're in and what's coming next. The incredible Robin Gavon joins us now. Welcome to Assembly Required. Thank you so much for having me. Okay, Robin, you are a Pulitzer. Prize winning writer. You're an exceptionally accomplished fashion editor. You are a trendsetter with

the way you describe the world we see. You've carved out what feels like your own unique arena. You've written about the intersections of politics and fashion. You've investigated and interrogated what we're seeing and what we're not. I would love to know what first drew you to explore this topic. You know, it's kind of a combination. of happenstance and a little bit of intent. I mean, I never really thought that I would be someone who was writing about fashion. I sort of fell into that as a young journalist who just wanted a beat that I could call my own. And that sort of happened to be the one that opened up.

And I thought, I were close. This sounds interesting. Maybe I'll explore this. And I started thinking about, fashion sort of outside of the bubble that is the fashion industry, in part because I was someone who was coming to the subject, not as a fan, but as someone who was just sort of curious about it. Having spent so much of my career at The Washington Post, in Washington, politics and identity and power and sort of the struggle for.

power and respect, and it can't sort of help but think about that, regardless of what subject you're covering. So, Robin, one thing you just said sparks a conversation that I've been having both through articles, but also just in my political journey, which is a conversation of identity. And this, I would say, this misapprehension that we have, that identity isn't a useful tool that it doesn't or shouldn't exist in discourse. And you just described how fashion helped you think about identity. Can you talk about your reaction to the conversation about whether identity should be a part of

how we think of how we navigate the world? Yeah, I mean, the thing about fashion is that, you know, it is, it's inherently an interesting industry, right? because it's full of sort of creative people who are trying to also navigate a global business. But it's also extraordinarily intimate because no matter who we are, we can't really opt out of it. Right. I mean, unless we sort of dedicate ourselves to a nudist colony, we all have to sort of think about what we're going to put on in the morning. And I find that even people who have this sort of attitude of I am beyond fashion or I don't engage with fashion, they're still in some way reacting to this sort of outsize importance or impact that fashion has

and how we perceive people. And so when people start talking about, you know, identity and, you know, and saying that it's not something that we should focus on, to me that says you've never been in the position of having your identity questioned or having your identity judged or having your identity devalued. You've had this incredible luxury of being able to move through the world, move through a world in which your identity is sort of the, the de facto norm. It's the identity against which everything else is measured or defined. And if that's the case, I say lucky you, but I don't think that that means that we should sort of neglect to consider how other people have had to essentially fight to have their identity understood.

Well, with that in mind, how has fashion been used as a tool of identity defining or as political resistance. And to your point, how has it been a tool of power? Wow, that's, thank you, Stacey, for that really mouth, like, giant question. You know, solve the world. I need you to solve the world for us using fashion. So go. I mean, I will start by sort of focusing on like a very sort of traditional fashion element, right, which is the cover, the cover shot, right? any magazine or who gets to open a fashion show or close a fashion show on the runway. I mean, these are sort of the high points for a model, if you will, in their career.

And, you know, for a long time, the industry has grappled with, continues to grapple with diversity within the fashion industry and within the ranks of models. And a lot of times, you know, I think people sort of wonder, well, you know, like what's the big deal about like which teenager gets to be on the cover of a magazine or you know who cares who's closing a fashion show but i always sort of remind people that you know fashion is this way that we communicate how our understanding of beauty our understanding of gender our understanding of what sort of femininity means or what masculinity means and in many ways fashion teachers teaches us the kind of people who have value and the kind of people who are worth celebrating and worth elevating and worth aspiring to be like or, you know, emulating. And those are really powerful lessons. And, you know, and fashion does it in ways that are quite, that sometimes are quite obvious and sometimes are quite sneaky. And I think it's important that we

understand that fashion is kind of sneaking in these really potent messages that have a real ripple effect throughout the culture. And I also think about, you know, those images, this incredible images from the civil rights era during any of the protests. And you see these people, I was so struck by images from the march on Washington. They're all there in August. Martin Luther King is like making his speech. They're there around the reflecting pool. And I remember once I looked up the weather for that day

for a story that I was writing. Because this was in August in Washington. And it was hot. And I was just looking at the way that people were dressed. And a lot of it certainly had to do with just sort of the styles of the moment, but they were also just dressed in this way that had, that evoked such care and such purpose and to use an overused word, intentionality. And it just really spoke to the importance that they conferred on the moment, the importance of the way that they carried themselves in delivering their message. I think today people would sort of lump it into, you know, quote-unquote, respectability, politics. But at the time, it was not about, it was about gaining respect, but it was also about sort of announcing how much respect people had for themselves. And I think that's a really, again, a powerful message that fashion can send.

Assembly required with Stacey Abrams is brought to you by Mosh. Finding a quick snack that satisfies my hunger and won't leave me with regrets is tough. But I have found a protein snack that meets both goals, Mosh bars. Mosh, which you may have heard about on Shark Tank, was founded by Maria Shriver and her son, Patrick Schwarzenegger, with a simple mission. To create a conversation about brain health through food, education. and research. Maria's father suffered from Alzheimer's, and since then, she and Patrick have dedicated themselves to finding ways to help other families dealing with this debilitating disease.

Mosh joined forces with the world's top scientist and functional nutritionist to go beyond your average protein bar. Each Mosh bar is made with ingredients that support brain health, like Ashwaganda, Lions' Maine, collagen, and omega-3s, plus a gain-changing brain-boosting ingredient you won't find in any other bar. Mosh is the first and only food brand boosted with cognizant, a premium notropic that supplies the brain with a patented form of cytokoline. Mosh bars actually taste great and come in nine mouth-watering flavors, including three new plant-based flavors, chocolate chip cookie, hazelnut chocolate chip, and peanut chocolate chip. But here's the best part to make you feel good.

Mosh donates a portion of all proceeds from your order to fund gender-based brain health research through the women's Alzheimer's movement. Why gender-based? Two-thirds of all Alzheimer's patients are women. Mosh is working closely to close the gap between women and men's health research. Maintaining a brain-healthy diet while also juggling multiple projects like Assembly Required and our new 10 Steps campaign can be a challenge. But having mosh bars on hand

means one less thing to worry about. Just keeping a few in my bag means I have a delicious, satisfying snack handy. And right now, my favorite is peanut chocolate chip. If you want to find ways to fuel your body and your brain, plus help others, mosh bars are the perfect choice for you. Head to moshlife.com slash assembly

to save 20% off, plus free shipping on the bestsellers trial pack or the new plant-based trial pack. That's 20% off plus free shipping on either the bestsellers trial pack or the plant-based trial pack at M-O-S-H-L-I-F-E dot com slash assembly. Thank you, Mosh, for sponsoring this episode. May I remember a story that my grandmother told me, and I talk about it in my book, our time is now, she talked about the first time she and my grandfather and his brother and sister-in-law, the first time they went to vote in Mississippi in 1968, they were voting in the presidential election. And when she told me the story, she said they'd come home from work

and my grandfather and Uncle L.P. and its sister were waiting in the front room for her to finish getting dressed. And I remember stopping her in the story saying, you know, why were you going to get dressed. And she said, well, we had to get dressed up. You know, she was changing into hosiery. I mean, she was a cook. She and my grandfather were cooks at a college. And they got out of their uniforms and she was putting on her Sunday best because this was an event. They were going to participate as full citizens for the very first time in their lives and cast a ballot. And for her, the sheer act of getting dressed up carried such weight and meaning. And it to her seemed absolutely necessary. And I

juxtapose that with how some of my friends think about whether they vote or not, let alone what they were to vote. And I guess I would ask you, you raised respectability politics, but I think there's also just the question of what are current examples that you see that if not carry the exact same weight that we can imbue in that moment of history that give you some echoes in current conversations about fashion and politics and their intersection? You know, I think about, you know, during the summer of the Black Lives Matter protests surrounding George Floyd's murder. And I remember there was a group of, I think it was all men, I might be wrong about that, who were in New York, who made this. point of getting dressed up when they were out there raising their voices. And when I say,

you know, getting dressed up, I mean, it was like, you know, those images from the 60s had been sort of dipped in technicolor. And they were, some of them were in suits, some of them were in ties, jackets. I mean, they just looked incredible. And their whole point was, you know, in sort of bringing a kind of dignity and importance to what they were doing. And not to say that you can't be in, you know, t-shirt, sneakers, shorts, whatever, and still be delivering a really important message. But I think, you know, as you said, there are reasons why, you know, there are still these, this handful of occasions in which we really, when we first,

about what we're going to wear and whether or not what we're wearing is appropriate or is respectful or perhaps celebratory enough. And I think about it's, you know, at weddings and at funerals. We think about what we're wearing. And those are occasions that still, you know, sort of carry this importance and an emotional weight to them, and there are these moments that, you know, we are going, that we know that we're going to remember. They're going to be sort of written into the family history book. And I don't know. I mean, sometimes I wonder if other moments still had that sort of capacity to inspire kind of thoughtful dressing that, that act of thoughtful dressing just sort of allows people to take a moment and really sort of think about the occasion that they're dressing for, whether it be a protest, whether it be, you know, the first time that, you know, someone is going into the voting booth. Well, I'm going to stick with the idea of thoughtful dressing and do a juxtaposition and a contrast. You had Ukrainian president, Volodymyr, Zelensky, who refused to wear a suit during his first Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump saying, quote, I will wear a costume after this war is finished.

What do you understand about Zelensky's decision and the outrage that followed and how you situated in this conversation of fashion and politics? Well, I think it's, I mean, it's fascinating to me that he had such an acute understanding of the way in which visuals can deliver a message without ever having to open your mouth. I mean, he certainly is someone who, I mean, he has this, you know, this entertainer's background and his choice to not wear a suit, to wear this kind of almost like workman sort of military garb. I think one certainly sends a message of connection. to, you know, the citizens of Ukraine, I think it underscores the role that he was forced

into having as this wartime president. And I think it was also kind of a rebuke to an administration that would like to sort of proceed sort of business as usual, that would like to sort of remove the stature that he has from having to deal with, grapple with, overcome, you know, these sort of terrible, these terrible circumstances. And, you know, I think it was also a way of setting him apart and saying, I'm not just, quote, unquote, another politician. This is not politics, even if he obviously is having to engage in politics. And the fact that, that that was called out as a kind of insult to the occupant of the Oval Office, I think underscores the degree to which appearances matter to the current president of the U.S. in a way that is

very different. I think that, you know, Zelensky's choice. is about allowing his substance to come through in his attire. And the reverse, I think, can also be true in which you allow the attire to substitute for substance. And with that intersection, I would like to talk about the current occupant who seems inordinately preoccupied with the fashion choices of others. but lacks a certain polished style in his own right. You wrote an article where you mentioned that his clothes are sort of a perfunctory set of uniforms, that they have quality, but they really lack attention to fit.

I would love to know what you think his style conveys about his understanding of fitness to weed and the fitness of this office. You know, I have been, I'm always, I've always been sort of fascinated by the fact that, you know, much of, much of what he wears is certainly pricey, expensive, and yet doesn't necessarily look so. I mean, there's this sort of understanding that you think, oh, if you spend a lot of money on something, then it's going to, sort of fit you perfectly and it's going to just sort of scream sort of quality and prestige. And, you know, that's not necessarily the case. I mean, it's the old adage that money doesn't buy you taste. Wait, you mean you mean outfitting the Oval Office in gold embossed does not necessarily convey what is intended? Yes, the gilding of all of that. You know, in many ways, it sort of, it reminds me of, and, you know, not to malign a teenager or an elementary school

person, but it sort of reminds me of what someone, uh, sort of imagines a, um, a wealthy person's home looks like or what it means to dress expensively. Um, it's a very kind of, of basic, unsophisticated take on it, and it is one that is much more attuned to, you know, sort of the bright, shiny object as opposed to any sort of thoughtful consideration of what it is that is particularly expressive of who you are. And, you know, I remember many, many, many years ago, interviewing Donald Trump. And one of the things that he talked about was how often his name was mentioned by a certain generation of rappers.

And, you know, I declined to, like, back-check that because I'm not going to go through the entire oove of, like, 1990s rap to see if that's true. But, you know, I do think that it seemed plausible only because his style represented this kind of sort of throw money at it wealth. And I think his style sort of reflects that kind of transaction that, like, how much money can you spend? and the more that you spend, the better it is, even if it's not. Yeah. I want to do a few questions with you about how fashion is meeting this moment or telling us a story about the moment we're in. And I use the term authoritarianism.

For folks who have been following my podcast and my substack, I spend a lot of time talking about authoritarianism and autocracy. But I think it's important for us to distinguish that authoritarianism is how a government behaves. It's how it aggregates decision-making to a small group. It intentionally disregards personal liberty and it opposes any form of accountability for itself. But it's a form of government. Fascism is an ideology. And that's a belief system that pursues this notion that a certain brand of purity, whether it's racial purity, ethnic purity, religious purity, sometimes all of the above. that that purity is the organizing belief system of government behavior.

And we can all recognize the most famous fascist fashion. That would be the Nazi uniform. But we know other aspirants have learned from and borrowed its components. Do you have an opinion about whether or not modern-day fascism has an aesthetic? And if so, do you see hints of it cropping up in American fashion or, globally because we see the rise of these authoritarian fascist governments across the world. Well, I mean, I don't know that I have enough skill to say whether or not something is, you know, a fascist or reflective of that or not. I mean, I do think that we see elements of fashion being used as a way of,

underscoring a kind of pure or acceptable version of femininity, masculinity, patriotism, nationalism. I mean, I think that when you look at the way that both the men and the women of the current administration comport themselves, you certainly see that there's no place for ambiguity. There's no place for sort of a gray zone, a middle ground. You know, there's a very particular way of presenting femininity, and there's a very particular way of presenting masculinity. And in some ways, it's so, so prescribed. that, you know, it doesn't allow for diversity because it's so strict that if you don't have or

are unwilling to create the sort of, you know, I don't want to malign an entire state, so I won't call them Utah curls, but that's the sort of long barrel curled hair, you know, that is, has become sort of one of the defining definitions of how a woman looks in this sort of universe. And, you know, it seems like, it seems very petty. But at the same time, when it's so narrow in that way, it doesn't leave room for like very many kinds of people to participate, to have a say, to be deemed competent if those are the definitions of competency. In many ways, like the, you know, the, I think we expect there to be some kind of, you know, strange or distinctive kind of uniform or way of dressing, but what is perhaps

the most disconcerting is that the most banal kinds of attire. have been worn and used, I mean, whether or not it's, you know, the khakis and polo shirts from, you know, the Charlottesville March or, you know, it's a bunch of guys, you know, dressed up like they belong to a fraternity. And, you know, those are the things that are sort of markers of the far right. And. And, you know, those are the things that are sort of markers of the far right. And I think if we look for something that seems jarring or, you know, sort of deviant in some way that we are going to miss what's right in front of us. Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams is brought to you by built. Rent is a huge monthly expense, but what you may not know is that you can actually get something in turn. Let me introduce you to Bilt, the rewards program designed for renters who want to earn something for their largest monthly expense. Let me explain. By paying rent through Bilt, you earn flexible points that can be redeemed towards hundreds of hotels and airlines, a future

rent payment, and your next lift ride or more. But it doesn't stop there. Built is about making your entire neighborhood more rewarding. You can dine out at your favorite local restaurants, and earn additional points, get VIP treatment at certain fitness studios, and enjoy exclusive experiences just for Built members every month. Built is turning a monthly expense into an opportunity to earn rewards and discover the best that your neighborhood has to offer. Your rent is finally working for you. Earn points on rent and around your neighborhood wherever you call home by going to joinbuilt.com slash assembly. That's join-built, J-O-I-N-B-I-T dot com slash assembly.

And make sure you use our URL so they know we sent you. I want to talk about this for a little bit more because we hear the term fascists thrown around autocrat, authoritarian, and they all have very specific meanings. And I think this is a moment where all of those meanings apply in different ways for different reasons. they're all true. This administration, this president, the regime that surrounds him, have made a centerpiece of their policymaking, attacking diversity, reviling equity, and demeaning inclusion. They have been very intentional about attacks on race, attacks on gender, attacks on sexual orientation, sexual gender identity. They have been very, very clear about the rise of ethnonationalism and Christian nationalism, and those are markers of fascism. And the reason

I raised this is because, you know, during Trump's first term, there was a heated debate among designers about whether they would dress Melania. You know, there are big names like Tom Ford and Mark Jacobs and Zach Posen who publicly refused. And yet this time, that forceful opposition seems to have faded and multiple members of the family of this regime, the family of those who have made it a very clear intention to reject diversity, to be repulsed by the importance of identities that are not their own. These family members are being dressed for events by high-profile designers. And so I'd love to hear you reflect on how you see the shift and what does it say about the fashion industry and cultural gatekeepers more broadly. And I want to tie it back to something

you referenced, which is cackies and the polo shirts of today were the brown shirts that Hugo Boss had to apologize for providing to the Nazis. And so I'd love to just know how you're thinking about the role that the fashion industry is playing in this overthrow of democracy. Well, you know, I think for some of the designers, certainly, particularly around the time of inauguration, we're trying to kind of separate the person from the institution, the particular administration from this sort of historical American moment. Now, I don't know that that's possible, but, you know, I think at that point there was definitely a sense of,

trying to be nonpartisan. I don't know that if choosing non-partisanship under those circumstances is a choice that will ultimately sit well with history. I think that the fashion industry is like any other in that, that it is a business that is trying to look out for, you know, its bottom line. I mean, I will say that certainly the world of luxury fashion under the corporate ownership of LVMH is of particular interest because, you know, that is a conglomerate that is controlled. by Bernard Arnault, and that is someone who has a very, I would say, publicly comfortable relationship with this administration.

I mean, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but, you know, that is certainly, all signs point to that. Certainly the first time around, the first term, Mr. Arnaud went to, Trump Tower and met with the incoming president. And then later on, opened a Louis Vuitton factory in Texas. And the president and his team came to, you know, cut the ribbon. I will say that they were rather quiet or as quiet as they could be within the fashion industry about the president coming to open that factory.

and did not exactly shout it at the top of their lungs. But, you know, so there's that business aspect of it that exists. And then to some degree, I think, and it seems to me that this is, in many ways, kind of been the case for a lot of people. I feel like there's almost a kind of outrage, exhaustion to some degree. that for some people, it was, they just couldn't stay at sort of high outrage. I mean, certainly there is the issue of the tariffs and the way that that's affecting, you know, the fashion industry. But there still are, I would say, a lot of designers or some designers who are being very pointed in their, their critique, their criticism of the administration.

And, you know, one that immediately comes to mind is Willie Chavaria, who is of Mexican-American descent, a beautiful, beautiful designer, focused mostly on menswear. And, you know, he showed his very first collection in Paris and took that opportunity to, you know, open with the song. Hotel California in English and also in Spanish. And the first handful of guys down that runway were, you know, brown-skinned men with, you know, close-cropped hair, wearing white t-shirts and shorts. And they came out and they, you know, knelt in formation, sort of mimicking what had been happening with detainees who had been sent to the prison in Al-Salle.

And then that was followed with a beautiful collection that really celebrated that convergence of Mexican heritage and American and Southern California and all the things that make Willie such an interesting and wonderful and unique designer. And so I think that was one way that one designer, you know, was speaking. his mind. But certainly there are others that are based in Europe, for sure, that are happy to dress the First Lady and the family. I'm so glad you raised that, and I appreciate your very thoughtful engagement, because as much as there are 10 steps to authoritarianism and autocracy. I believe there are 10 steps to freedom and power. And two of my favorite steps are step six, which is disruption. We've got to disrupt those things that would steal our joy. We've got to disrupt those moments or those industries or the facility of authoritarianism to change who we are

or what we expect. And then we have to deny. We have to deny diminution. over our language, over our fashion, over how we express ourselves, because part of authoritarianism is this intention to deny you for personal freedom, and part of fascism is to deny you identity. And so, you know, my FYP has been gushing over how the black-owned brand, actively black, held their fashion show in New York Fashion Week called This Is Not a Fashion Show, and they featured civil rights pioneers and their descendants walking the runway. You know, you had Ruby Bridges, you had Dr. Bernice King, you had the civil rights photographer, Cecil J. Williams. Given what you've just described and given how we are watching this assault on the black community, on immigrants, especially immigrants of Hispanic descent, how have and how should we understand

disruption and denial of authority to those who would try to take it from us in this current moment. Well, you know, I think one of the reasons that fashion gets under people's skin, so to speak, is because it really does get at the core of how we want the world to see us and how the world wants us to do. seen. And often those two things can be, you know, terribly in conflict. I mean, I think about, you know, the incredible amounts of attention and hysteria over drag queens. And, I mean, it comes down to the fact that, you know, people wanting to control how others move through identify themselves, move through the culture, move through society. And, you know, it's, it leaves me basically speechless in many ways. But, I mean, I do think that the industry is at its best when it is being incredibly, when it's being artful and using the creativity that

designers have to tell us a story, to allow us to see beauty where we didn't necessarily know we would find it, or to highlight something that perhaps we see all the time, but never gave it really a second glance. And I think fashion can be really powerful when it challenges are ideas about gender roles and who holds the power and what power looks like in a particular circumstance. So Hillary Clinton faced relentless scrutiny

of her wardrobe when she ran for president in 2016. When Kamala Harris was running for president, she often wore suits in very bold colors and she cycled through different styles. When I ran for governor of Georgia in 2018, nobody who looked like me had ever run for that office before, much like Secretary Clinton and Vice President Harris. And, you know, that meant that personally I had to be very careful and very thoughtful about my fashion choices. And, you know, you wrote this piece about my style choices

for The Washington Post, a piece that really just meant the world to me. And if you remember that article, and just as you think about your observations during those two election cycles for Secretary Clinton and for Vice President Harris, I'd love for you to ruminate about why the fashion standards are so different for women in politics as compared to men, but also, as a personal revelation, like, what prompted you to write about my approach? And just, I would love for you to spend a little bit of time talking and thinking about that, because there is this conversation now, about what women are permitted to have, what they're permitted to reach for.

And fashion is often the first line of critique when evaluating capacity. Well, you know, I think when you look at, you know, the pictures of people with political clout in the United States, you know, that wall is overwhelmingly dominated by men and by white men, and they're all wearing suits. And if nothing else, that those images have sort of taught us that the person and the white guy in the room wearing the suit is probably the one in charge.

And that has really taught us, you know, some of the sort of given us this sort of baseline idea of what power looks like. And we are obviously, you know, a very visual culture. And I think what is challenging or has been challenging for women is that there wasn't a template, right? The most unqualified guy can put on a dark suit and a red or blue tie. And he sort of looks like he's dress for the part of power, right? And with women, there wasn't, there hasn't been this sort of easy template. Put this on and it automatically sort of puts you into this sort of cliche power position. And, you know, I sort of half jokingly said that, you know, Hillary Clinton wore, you know, a million pantsuits in pink, yellow, marigold and cantaloupe. So,

Kamala Harris could wear, you know, a gray pantsuit and have it not be a big deal. I mean, I think, you know, it took Hillary Clinton sort of creating, helping to create this template. And it is very narrow. And it is really challenging when you're a a woman who doesn't necessarily sort of feel comfortable in that template, don't feel like it flatters you, or you just don't want to do it. And then it becomes this matter of trying to figure out, okay, like, what is going to convey, like, my power? What is going to convey sort of grovitas and that crazy chemistry, right? It has to be that mix of. gravitas and approachability and authority, but also, you know, not too tough, but not too sweet.

And so it was just, it's always interesting to me to see how women who are in positions of authority and who are, you know, moving on to like the next step on that ladder to see how they define power with a feminine voice. And, you know, I certainly have gotten backlash from people who are like, oh, like, why are you writing about women and what they're wearing? And my argument is, like, I think we should be writing more about what men are wearing because it also says a lot about, you know, who they are in perhaps in more subtle ways. And, you know, in the past, As I've also said that I feel like women have, you know, can use fashion in ways that are really helpful to communicating to the public. But, you know, when I was just sort of watching as you, you know, were running and I still remember that beautiful blue dress, I just thought that you had.

had sort of found this way of sort of evoking a sense of individuality, but also authority. And it, and modernity, which was really sort of another way of saying, you know, this is the, like, the future for progress, progressivism. And, you know, and I want it, and I wanted to talk about that because it is something that I think is really important in our understanding of, like, who gets to be in charge. And it's important that we get used to a female vernacular of power so that it's important. becomes as familiar and as standard as the male vernacular. So, Robin, you recently put out a book called Make It Hours, Crashing the Gates of Culture with Virgil Ablo. Virgil Ablo was this groundbreaking fashion designer and cultural icon who really remixed,

who gets to decide taste in the high-end world of fashion. And you have spent your career taking fashion into places that people don't expect to see it. You did this wonderful piece on reclaiming the flag, that documentary about the LGBTQIA community that really centered around the meaning of the flag for marginalized communities. And you spend such thoughtful time helping us articulate what we see in ourselves when we dress and how we understand the messages being sent to us. So my last question for you is the homework assignment I give to every guest, which is that you've got an audience listening to you,

and they want ways to make it theirs. They want to reclaim this country. They feel the exhaustion you described. They feel the confusion that you evoked. But they also want to know how to make, how do we make it hours again, and the role that fashion can play. So if you can tell this audience something you want them to do on these steps to freedom and power,

if they want to disrupt, if they want to deny, if they simply want to claim, what should they do? Well, you know, two things occur to me from the book. And one is actually something that I address in the acknowledgments. But, you know, one of the big lessons that I took from the reporting was the importance of something very simple, and it sounds really Pollyanna-ish, but it was about optimism. And Virgil Ablo was a really optimistic guy.

And, you know, at one point during an interview, and we were actually talking about, diversity within the fashion industry and whether or not the industry could change and grow and all of those, all the good things. And he said, I'm an optimist. I choose optimism. I choose to believe that, you know, people can change and things can be better. And I feel like it's such a simple yet powerful lesson because it can be so difficult to be optimistic, to maintain your optimism. And, you know, he did it not being naive, not, you know, being unable to see the hurdles, not being able to see the darkness. But he simply said, I choose to be optimistic. I choose to believe that the next day can be better.

I choose to believe that I can be better, that other people can be better. And the other thing was after he got the job at Routon, and people were surprised because he didn't have the traditional background. And I was surprised, certainly. And, you know, he was thrilled and he said, You know, I don't know why everyone is so surprised. I mean, I was designing a collection.

I, you know, was getting better at my craft. So why not me? And I thought that response was indicative of his own sense of confidence. It was a challenge to the people who didn't think that he could do it or that he was worthy. And it was a kind of rebuke to those who sort of feel like, well, because I don't, I haven't checked off this box, this box, and this box that I can't do something. Because the truth is, you might have checked off a bunch of other boxes that are just as important, but that the industry or the culture is just not placing the same value on those boxes that you checked, even though perhaps they should.

And so I think that combination of sort of remembering to ask yourself, why not me, when something needs to be solved, when a problem comes up, when there's a possibility, when there is a dream that seems impossible to just say, you know, why not me? And if you are, if you remember to be an optimist, you will continue to say, why not me? And at some point, hopefully, optimistically, people will say, yeah, why not? Robin Givon, writer, reporter, and remarkable fashion interpreter. Thank you so much for joining us today on Assembly Required. Oh, it's been such a pleasure.

As always on Assembly Required, we're here to give you real, actionable tools to face today's biggest challenges. First, be curious. If you enjoyed my conversation with Robin Givon, please pick up her latest book, Make It Hours, Crashing the Gates of Culture with Virgil Ablo. Second, solve some problems. Of the 100 billion garments produced each year, 92 million end up in landfills, the equivalent of one garbage truck full of clothes every single second. To stop adding to the waste, be mindful of your clothing consumption and shopping habits. Before clicking on that fast fashion site for the latest trend at the cheapest price, I'm going to ask you to ask yourself, do I really need this? Can I buy it from a sustainable source. Can I thrift something similar instead? I believe you're up to the challenge.

And third, do some good. If you have old clothes or have been meaning to clean out your closet, don't throw them away. Instead, consider donating them to those in need. Look at goodwill, your place of worship, or making a direct donation to local homeless shelters. All of these are great places to start. And as always, if you like what you hear, be sure. to share this episode and subscribe on all your favorite platforms. To help us meet the demands of the algorithms, please rate the show and leave a comment. You can find us on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, or wherever you go to listen and learn. And please also check out my substack, Assembly Notes, for more information about what we discussed on the podcast and other tools to help us protect our

democracy. As you may have noticed, we're going to keep talking about the Ten Steps campaign as a way to both recognize and activate against this authoritarian fascist regime. For more information, please visit 10 StepsCampaign.org, sign up and share. And as always, I'd love to hear more about what you're going to be doing and what tools or resources you need. If you have a report, a question, or a comment for me, send it in. You can start with an email to assembly required at crooked.com or leave us a voiceman. and you and your questions and comments might be featured on the pod.

Our number is 213, 293-9509. Well, that wraps up this episode of Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams. Please be careful out there, be optimistic, and I'll see you here next week. Assembly Required is a Crooked Media production. Our lead show producer is Lacey Roberts, and our associate producer is Farah Safari. Kiro Pahlaviv is our video producer.

This episode was recorded and mixed by Charlotte Landis. Our theme song is by Vasilis Photopoulos. Thank you to Matt DeGroote, Kyle Segglin, Tyler Boozer, Ben Hethcote, and Priyanka Muntha for production support. Our executive producers are Katie Long and me, Stacey Abras.