'Are pouty lips really so bad?' WSJ columnist defends Karoline Leavitt's 'MAGA beauty'

Ridicule of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s change in appearance since she joined Donald Trump’s administration led a Wall Street Journal columnist to rush to her defense by arguing that, while there are some obvious enhancements at work, there is nothing wrong with it.

On the day before Christmas, columnist Louise Perry argued that the furor of a photo of Leavitt in Vanity Fair last week, where injection marks could be plainly seen around her inflated lips, were hypocritical because women on the left have their own aesthetic that is less obvious, but just as calculated.

Calling criticism of Leavitt an example of “catty ad feminam attacks on the women of the Trump administration,” she added, “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.”

Reporting that “The full 'Mar-a-Lago Face'—a suite of cosmetic procedures including Botox, a face-lift and the rest—costs $90,000,” she claimed it is often a target of the left.

“Are long blond hair and pouty lips really so bad?’ she asked. “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.”

Perry expressed surprise at the anti-Leavitt vitriol, writing, “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?”

Singling out a casual look labeled “West Village Girl (”a plain cropped T-shirt, straight bluejeans and sneakers”) she explained 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.”

Perry concluded, “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.”

You can read more here.