Yesterday the monumental news came down the pike. We waited, with bated breath, to see the photo. And there she was: Michelle Obama, First Lady of America, with bangs. She looks good! (I think Michelle Obama always looks good.) And bangs are hip, trendy, cool — hey, we all read the New York Times Thursday Styles, right? We know about Zoe Deschanel. We've heard about this Julius Caesar character. Audrey Hepburn! She had them, too. Bangs are where it's at. And Michelle Obama, stylish lady, now with bangs, lives in Washington, D.C. In the White House, of all places. So why is it that we're still going on and on and on about how totally unhip, unfashionable, and Mom-jeansified Washington, D.C., is? Is it because it's true? Or is this a trope that we simply wish to hold onto, for reasons of political gain?
I'm fully aware that one haircut does not make an entire city fashionable, and I'm also in full agreement that the First Lady was hot before the bangs. But there's an article today in the Wall Street Journal by Elizabeth Williamson that would have us believe that D.C.'s political elite hail from some backwater fashion hole where ruching simply never arrived, where trends go to die, but don't even make it to live. This piece is about inaugural fashion prep, and how difficult it is (because it's in Washington, D.C.), and how much of a struggle it's been to "find inaugural ball gowns that defied Washington's button-down standard."