 |
| Barack Obama meets with John F Tefft, August |
The year was 2014 and the world was eagerly waiting for the President of the
United States to deliver a message on the ISIS threat and other matters of
national and global importance. Just in time, Barack Obama emerged wearing a
light brown suit. To the ordinary viewer watching from home, nothing about the
suit was peculiar. If anything, it was simply a different colour they had not
seen him wear before.
However, Republicans would not let that
supposed mistake pass. How unprofessional could he be? They openly criticised
the suit, claiming it did not match the seriousness of the issues at hand.
Considering that the matters involved national security, they argued he should
have worn darker, more authoritative colours that projected gravity. To them,
the suit appeared unpresidential and, absurdly, some even framed it as an
impeachable offence. This harmless suit was portrayed as a sign of relaxation
at a time when the country was dealing with persistent threats from ISIS and
still carrying the memory of the 9/11 attacks.
The truth is that the tan suit was just one
example of the trivial matters politicians magnify to paint their opponents in
a negative light and gain political mileage. From accusations about a Saudi
bow, to not wearing a flag pin, to wearing a helmet while cycling, to not
wearing a coat or tie, to allowing a Marine to hold an umbrella, all these
examples share the same motivation: politics. There seems to be an irresistible
urge among politicians, regardless of party, to engage in political witch-hunts
using any tactic, whether real or perceived, true or exaggerated, to bring
their opponents down. It reduces the political arena to a circus.
Was the tan suit an isolated case? Absolutely
not. Other presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, wore suits of
similar colour and nobody raised any objections. There was also little
criticism when Donald Trump leaned forward slightly while receiving an honour
from the Saudi King, or when he failed to wear a flag pin. When George W. Bush
cycled with a helmet on, there were no dramatic comparisons with other world
leaders about how “strong” or “masculine” they looked. The double standards are
clear, but in an age of fast-moving digital information, it takes deliberate
effort to counter misinterpretations and misinformation.
Politics aside, does colour really influence
perception and emotion? According to Carl Jung, colours are the mother tongue
of the subconscious; they speak to the deeper mind and influence how we
interpret experiences. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Theory of Colours also
holds that colours shape our psychological responses. In essence, the colour of
a suit should correspond to the seriousness of the message being delivered. If
a threatening statement is made by someone in a pink suit, it may not be taken
as seriously as if it were delivered by someone in a maroon one. This is one
reason world leaders often wear blue or darker shades during serious global
engagements. Obama’s PR team and personal aides could have advised him more
carefully on the psychology of colour.
Although
the suit may at best be considered inappropriate for the occasion, it received
far more backlash and attention than it deserved. The controversy shows how a
trivial matter can be exaggerated and twisted to serve political agendas. Most
of those who criticised it did not object to the colour itself; their issue was
with the person wearing it.