Don’t Hate Karoline Leavitt Because She’s Beautiful

The ‘MAGA aesthetic’ triggers revulsion on the left, as the reaction to the recent Vanity Fair profile revealed.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in Washington on Nov. 24. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Vanity Fair last week published an unflattering profile of White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. The piece was accompanied by unflattering photographs of various members of the Trump administration. Award-winning photographer Christopher Anderson likes to take very close-up portraits, particularly of politicians. This spread included a wide-eyed shot of Ms. Wiles that recalled a mug shot, plus a squinting JD Vance looking vaguely confused. Regal portraiture this was not.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s portrait attracted the most attention. A glance at the gleeful comments on Vanity Fair’s Instagram post reveals why. The zoom is so intense, and the lighting so harsh, that every crease and pore in Ms. Leavitt’s skin is visible. Worst of all are the tiny red marks around her lips. “Fresh from her filler appointment,” crowed one woman. “Really incredible work here showcasing Karoline’s gender affirming care,” wrote another.

The joke about “gender affirming care” recurs in catty ad feminam attacks on the women of the Trump administration. Critics of so-called “MAGA beauty” compare the aesthetic to a drag show, not only because it is extremely feminine—lots of makeup, big hair, form-fitting clothing—but also because of the emphasis on cosmetic enhancements, including lip filler. The full “Mar-a-Lago Face”—a suite of cosmetic procedures including Botox, a face-lift and the rest—costs $90,000, according to one surgeon’s estimate. This is an expensive look to emulate.

It also attracts derision, particularly from the left. Last year, political commentator Suzanne Lambert put out a satirical viral video titled “doing my makeup like the gorg maga girlies in my comments,” set to the tune of country star Gretchen Wilson’s “Redneck Woman.” The message of the video is that MAGA beauty is trashy and obscene. “Overdone and underblended,” as one journalist described it. A manifestation of a new “fascist” aesthetic, insisted another. The look is so ugly, Barnard professor Anne Higonnet told Mother Jones magazine, that it ought to be interpreted as “a sign of physical submission to Donald Trump.”

Are long blond hair and pouty lips really so bad? It doesn’t surprise me at all that Ms. Leavitt, tasked with being the face and voice of the Trump administration, would want to accentuate her beauty. And the hyperfeminine bombshell look is an obvious model for conservatives to follow, given its association both with the confidence of the 1950s, and with the South. “The higher the hair, the closer to God,” as Dolly Parton was supposedly fond of saying.

A more interesting question is why the anti-MAGA crowd rejects this look with such vehemence. There is no end of research indicating that beauty is socially and professionally advantageous, particularly for women. And emphasizing one’s femininity is a classic way of emphasizing one’s beauty. Why pass up the chance to look as good as possible?

The answer is that beauty is prized on the other side of the aisle, just in a very different way. Contrary to conservative stereotypes, most elite leftist women don’t sport blue hair and septum piercings. Walk around any affluent neighborhood in any major city and you’ll see young women in the uniform of what has been called the “West Village Girl”—a plain cropped T-shirt, straight bluejeans and sneakers. Older women have also embraced a casual and masculine look. Fashion journalist Cassidy Crocket produces a video series on “what the cool moms of New York are wearing,” with regular detours to other American cities. The style she identifies is casual, muted and oversize: a lot of baggy knitwear, neutral colors and clumpy shoes. All from expensive labels, of course, but the sort of labels that you won’t have heard of if you’re not a part of this world. Fashion journalists have coined various terms to describe this aesthetic—“quiet luxury,” “clean girl”—but I think of it as the anti-MAGA look.

It is a practical style, of course, which is a large part of the appeal. Be in no doubt that putting together the full MAGA ensemble daily is time-consuming and uncomfortable, particularly the high heels. I’m reminded of a friend whose grandmother wore heels everyday of her life. By middle age, her feet were so deformed she could no longer comfortably wear flats. She had to source a pair of heeled slippers to wear around the house. Feminists aren’t wrong to point out that conforming to feminine beauty ideals requires suffering.

But the anti-MAGA aesthetic also requires considerable effort, even if the results don’t look as aggressively feminine. Note that carefully curated casual outfits are typically paired with high-maintenance hair and makeup, just not of the “overdone and underblended” style. And women who vote for Democrats also pay for plenty of cosmetic procedures. Millions of Americans opted for fillers last year, and a subtly puffed-up look is to be seen everywhere in Hollywood. “Pretty much everybody in the public eye who is 50 and above has had work done,” insists New York cosmetic surgeon Dr. Andrew Jacono. Most of them won’t admit it.

The anti-MAGA aesthetic reminds me of the apparently austere black clothing worn in portraiture of the Dutch Golden Age—an indication, one might think, of the pious humility of the sitter. In fact, the choice of black was a display of wealth, since this was the most expensive cloth color available in 17th-century Amsterdam.

Looking effortlessly perfect is often the most effective way of displaying status. Aestheticians who can do barely perceptible work cost more than those who can’t. You can look attractive in baggy jeans only if you are lithe and youthful. “No makeup makeup” looks good only if your complexion has been perfected by an elaborate skin-care regime. The MAGA and the anti-MAGA looks are both fake. But only one is honest in its fakeness.

Ms. Perry is a Free Expression columnist at WSJ Opinion.