If you think about great style icons of moments past- Bridget Bardot, who accidentally made gingham fashionable, Grace Kelly, who inspired one of the most lusted after handbags to this day and Sophia Loren, whose kohl-lined eyes still conjure imagery of forbidden pleasure – they were never part of the political sphere as we understand it today. These beacons of elegance were not used to communicate or comment on political issues, nor were they so inclined to start a movement. Marilyn Monroe was perhaps the closest that era came to having publicized ties with the political world, and her ensembles were not considered a tranche of the partisan language.

It wasn’t until the Kennedy era, when Jacqueline’s timeless style, punctuated with Halston pillbox hats, Chanel suits and inaugural Oleg Cassini ensembles, became intertwined with her role as First Lady. Yet, little mention was made of her husband’s wardrobe, until the likes of Mr. Porter and GQ pay homage to the Ivy League-esque, single breasted debonair of JFK as his statement style has resurfaced in recent menswear collections.

60 years later, we are still commenting on the wardrobes of women in politics.  The ‘New Age in Power Dressing’ is upon us, as the New York Times aptly noted over the summer, and I can’t help but think about when it all started. How did Jackie O’s famous pink pillbox hat transform into inaugural gowns that highlight new designers and Ralph Lauren suits that take over the upper fold of morning news?

For Hillary Clinton, it started 23 years ago when she wore a Donna Karan gown to her first official White House dinner as First Lady. Exhibiting two shoulder cut outs, appropriately coined ‘cold shoulder,’ the dress prompted sexist outfit commentary that continues to persist two decades and several political accolades later. A year before the ‘revealing’ dress was debuted; Karan premiered a collection entitled “In Women We Trust,” which depicts a female presidency.

It was the first time that the fashion industry had created a political illusion not yet imaginable to the public. Model Rosemary McGrotha, in traditional menswear being sworn in and surrounded by her male advisors, conjures a version of reality we are ready accept today, but in 1992, perhaps it was just a statement of power dressing, a stance that roared the notion that women could obtain seats of authority with shoulder pads, dramatized collars and double breasted blazers.

Two and half decades later, Hillary Clinton’s coat choice at a campaign function is the object of ridicule or admiration, depending on if you are commenting on its perceived elitist price tag or its sartorial acumen. The fashion of politics is now so entrenched into our everyday vernacular, it has become crucial to the lens through which we watch and partake in the process.

As November 8th passes by, Emma Stone is splashed across the cover of this month’s Vogue, the word ‘VOTE’ seamlessly creating a parallel acrostic resting above Emma’s right temple. While the cover may not evoke suggestions of whom to vote for, one can guess. On page 62, before the credits and letter from the editor, a flag graphic emerges from the glossy leaf, the stars replaced with Clinton’s campaign logo. Vogue magazine, never before publicly supporting a candidate in its 124-year history, urges its readers to consider allowing the seasoned politician to help us reclaim national credit and create the America “we want to be.”

Lena Dunham, Beyoncé and Jay-Z, the entire cast of West Wing, Ralph Lauren, Kendall Jenner, Diane Von Furstenberg, Kerry Washington, Rag & Bone’s David Neville and Marcus Wainwright and the list continues – the crème de la crème of fashion, film and television have banded together to create a powerhouse of support and voice for the female candidate.

Michelle Obama, who should only be styled in sleeveless ensembles with those arms, is notable for selecting up and coming designers for her official wardrobe and subsequently catapulting them into the spotlight. Jason Wu created both of her inaugural ball gowns in 2009 and 2013, and he has since had his collections adorn the carefully curated rooms at Bergdorf Goodman and runways at Fashion week.

For a Singapore State Dinner in early August of this year, the first lady chose a white crepe gown, created by Brandon Maxwell, Lady Gaga’s stylist, who, at the time, wasn’t even a member of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, C. F. D. A, nor had he even debuted a full collection, besides the white jumpsuit the politically active singer donned at the Oscars. Maxwell, the 2016 LVMH prize for young designer finalist has since joined the famed council and held his first show in September. The power of politics is transcending Capitol Hill, suggesting that maybe social literacy and advocacy can play a part in a previously perceived niche, superficial industry.

As emblems of the current political sphere help to spur success for young designers, these creatives and their muses, the current myriad of top models and staples in the fashion industry, are working to gather up their forces and contribute. Fall fashion week 2016 started a day early because Anna Wintour said so as she wrangled together a show to support Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The show, an assemblage of runway regulars, couture designs, and ‘normal’ parents and children as models, continued the momentum after Tory Burch, Marc Jacobs and others designed fundraising T-shirts for the candidate earlier in the campaign.

Prabal Gurung, another contributor to the array of tees, took it a step further by creating a pantsuit and matching cape with the words “I’m with Madame President” on the back for Katy Perry’s performance at a rally in Philadelphia on November 6. The sweeping blue cape, further memorializing the phrase heard round the world over the last 6 months, was matched with blue pantsuits worn by back up dancers at Beyoncé and Jay – Z’s free concert in Cleveland, Ohio – paying deference to Hillary’s go-to look.

This current frenzy of millennial style sponsorship and collaboration is record in nature and inspiring in practicality, however it begs the question: would it be the same if the candidates were different? Would the industry maintain the same anti-Trump, must vote Hillary fervor if Mitt Romney were the Republican candidate?  Or is the world of fashion peaking in its importance coincidentally and Hillary is reaping the benefits of this new cohort of patronage?

The anxiety-producing future of Trump at the helm is enough for designers to leave their ateliers and stand next to a figure that doesn’t wear ill-fitting Brioni suits, but in the age of alternative modes of communication, increased interdisciplinary approaches to messaging and constituency mobilization strategies, it all makes sense. Fashion designers with their threads, models with their social media followings, actors with their institutionalized voice on and off stage or screen, politicians with their established credibility, all come prepared with their own networks.

Mobilization in the modern age takes a village of niched, specialized components to create a conglomerate of sound and direction. Yes the presidential candidate selection might seem bleak and the state of the nation may hang in the balance, however fashion has chosen this moment to breathe life into national conversation. Vogue wouldn’t endorse a candidate simply because the other one was entirely unreasonable, would they? Has the official spokesperson and trendsetter of fashion made a statement simply to highlight the poverty of alternatives? No. Donna Karan was right – in women we trust, one in particular. Fashion just called their play officially this time.