I think Doug's right. Fashion's appeal is often determined by how exclusive it is to a certain set. It's kind of like a college degree, the catch-all solution to some for poverty. The more people have it, the less it's worth.
I think the report on the Vuitton-wearing politician was a pretty sleazy hit job. I am torn between admiring rock star-like champions of the people who are defiantly socialist yet have impeccably savvy taste, and between being pretty incredulous as to how sincere apparently champagne socialist types might be. A lot of fashion is merely the culture of the poor appropriated, repackaged, amped up on steroids, sold back to poor youth, etc., at multiple times the cost of how it began. Example is the faux vintage look -- jeans that look washed, stained a certain, precise way, costing $500 or even more. That shit annoys me. Can't say that about Armani, I guess, but the appeal of these things doesn't seem to rest on a universal, objective sense of "good taste," just what rich tastemakers happen to like. When it's accessible to peasant stock, it becomes gauche.
-B.