The first Monday of May has come and gone, and with it, the Met Gala.
The annual haute couture fundraising event emerged from humble(r) origins. A ticket to the first Met Gala (held in 1948) would run you $50. A ticket to the 2026 Met Gala reportedly cost $100,000. Invite-only.
Naturally, the Met Gala has become the preferred object of criticism for populists of varied political stripes.
The Gala and its attendees are often decried as being “elitist” or “out-of-touch.” The extravagant pageantry is sometimes compared to that of Capitol dwellers of “The Hunger Games.” Oli London, a Korean plastic surgeon fanatic turned right-wing clip farmer, is especially fond of this comparison.
Meghan McCain referred to the Gala as “tone deaf given the times of extreme political populism we’re living in.”
Even some of the Met Gala attendees appear to take issue with the exclusive nature of the gala. Actress Sarah Paulson wore a blindfold fashioned out of a dollar at the Met Gala in an apparent protest against the “one percent.” One thinks of Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s infamous “Tax the Rich” dress, which she wore to the 2021 Met Gala.
The populist left and the populist right take issue with the Met Gala for the same fundamental reason: It is an unabashed display of wealth. It is a reminder that some people are wealthier than others, and that the wealthiest people enjoy certain privileges unique to their class.
One might protest that online commentators are only reacting to the ridiculous nature of the costumes at the Gala. That comprises an element of the backlash, but I maintain that a greater portion of the anger is actually directed at the existence of an elite class at all.
(There are good reasons to lampoon the Met Gala, but I’ll get to that later.)
It is fitting that the modern leftist should object to an elite class. Leftism is founded on a resentment of inequality (regardless of the source of that inequality).
But why should the modern conservative, or right-winger, object to an elite class? A good Republican advocates for meritocracy, for the free market — both of which will naturally result in hierarchy. There is a long conservatism tradition of advocating for social hierarchies.
Edmund Burke distinguished between the “true moral equality of mankind,” and the “monstrous fiction” proffered by the French revolutionaries.
“You would have had a protected, satisfied, laborious, and obedient people, taught to seek and to recognize the happiness that is to be found by virtue in all conditions; in which consists the true moral equality of mankind, and not in that monstrous fiction which, by inspiring false ideas and vain expectations into men destined to travel in the obscure walk of laborious life, serves only to aggravate and embitter that real inequality which it never can remove, and which the order of civil life establishes as much for the benefit of those whom it must leave in a humble state as those whom it is able to exalt to a condition more splendid, but not more happy,” Burke writes in “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” published 1790.
So, then, is the Met Gala a celebration of Burkian ethics?
Not quite.
In “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” Burke also writes, “A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views.” (A true conservative!)
The ethos of modern fashion is innovation. Whether a garment is beautiful or flattering matters much less than whether it is new and provocative. Hence: Some invariably ugly new trend taking hold of the female population every five to seven years.
Still, I don’t begrudge the costume element of the Met Gala. This year’s theme was “Fashion is Art.” Most celebrities donned a fairly literal interpretation of that theme, their clothing making reference to some painting or another.
I like fashion. I especially like admiring garments that I would never have the opportunity, or gall, to wear. I think textile production is interesting and impressive. I’m interested in the effects a designer might create via drapery, color, texture, in the narrative of a season’s collection.
Of course, the Met Gala is not a pure celebration of haute couture. It is an opportunity for celebrities to raise their status, show off the effects of their Ozempic or facelift, and probably do drugs in the museum bathrooms.
I don’t take issue with “an elite,” but I do take issue with our elite. It’s often said that actresses in the Roman Empire were considered with the same regard as prostitutes. That assessment is probably fair.
Kim Kardashian, a 45-year-old mother of 4, is a Met Gala regular. Kardashian rose to prominence off the back of a “sex tape,” rumored to be leaked by her own mother. That such a woman could belong to our elite class — or even be emblematic of it — suggests our age is a decaying, decadent one. The Met Gala is a sad parade of decline.
Like what you’re reading? If so, please consider subscribing to State of the Day or sharing this with a friend. You’d be supporting this newsletter and helping keep independent journalism alive.
If you are already a paid subscriber, make sure to join the conversation in our subscribers-only chat below.
Art...pressed on suction cups. Five stars!